Prayers

The House met in a hybrid proceeding.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord Lexden: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.

G7 Summit
 - Question

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what outcomes they hope to achieve at the G7 Summit due to be held in the United Kingdom in 2021.

Lord True: My Lords, the Government have developed an ambitious agenda for the UK’s G7 presidency, which focuses on building back better for all. The Prime Minister will welcome the leaders of the world’s leading democracies in June to address shared challenges, from beating coronavirus and tackling climate change to ensuring that people everywhere can benefit from open trade, technological change and scientific discovery.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: My Lords, I hope that today we are all celebrating President Biden’s decision to sign up again to the Paris Agreement on climate change. I hope that the Government recognise the critical importance of the G7 summit, building towards COP 26 in November and decisive action on climate change. Do the Government also recognise that the best global businesses are crying out for leadership on the sustainable development goals, the framework that provides us with the opportunity to genuinely build back better? Will the Government ensure that those goals are on the agenda for the G7?

Lord True: My Lords, certainly, one of the key declared aims of the G7 presidency is tackling climate change and preserving the planet’s biodiversity, as I stated. I can certainly tell the noble Lord that we very much welcome the prospect of bringing the COP 26  UN climate conference to Glasgow, to Scotland, in November and will be working on the important agenda that the noble Lord outlines.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: Following the question of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I was going to ask about the climate emergency. However, following the Minister’s answer, it is also important to ask: will the Government also focus on the social elements of our sustainable development goals, such as ending poverty and hunger, and dealing with inequality?

Lord True: My Lords, obviously those objectives are encompassed in the agenda set out by the Prime Minister. Promoting future prosperity for all is vital. Incidentally, I am certain that the noble Baroness will welcome the invitation to the Government of Australia to participate.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, on Tuesday, President Biden announced the formation of a White House gender policy council and committed to restoring America as a champion of women and girls, which is welcome news. I fully support the Prime Minister’s continued focus on girls’ education but can my noble friend the Minister tell me how the UK will work with the United States and other partners to ensure that the wider issue of gender inequality, which has of course been exacerbated by Covid-19, will be properly addressed at the G7 summit?

Lord True: I thank my noble friend for her important question. The Prime Minister has agreed to convene a gender equality advisory council that will report to the G7 leaders and drive an ambitious agenda to ensure that the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on women is recognised and the importance of gender equality is at the heart of an inclusive recovery. I thank my noble friend for her work and leadership in this area. The council will be part of her legacy.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I declare my interests and very much endorse the Minister’s reply to his noble friend Lady Sugg and his comments about her. I also welcome his response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, with which I totally agree. I welcome the emphasis that the Government are putting on beating the pandemic and future pandemic planning. However, does the Minister accept that we must recognise the importance of continuing support for ongoing global health programmes—such as that on malaria, where the UK has been a world leader—not only because they save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children every year but because they provide vital health infrastructure for the fight against future diseases?

Lord True: I thank the noble Baroness with her great experience for her kind comments. I can assure her that the United Kingdom remains committed to the research and development needed to fight all pandemics worldwide. One of the highest moments of my lifetime was the eradication of smallpox, and I am certain that the eradication of these great diseases, one of which the noble Baroness referred to, will remain an objective for all of us.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I wish the Government well in their participation in the summit. What new ideas do they intend to put forward in view of the increasing awareness of climate change? Will we suggest any positive steps that President Biden could now take, having overturned Trump’s policies?

Lord True: My Lords, it would be slightly impertinent of me on President Biden’s first day in office to set out an agenda for him. I think we all look forward to hearing that. I say again that we look forward to the COP 26 conference in Scotland. Within the G7 period and leading up to it, we will keep tackling climate change and preserving biodiversity will be at the heart of our efforts.

Lord Oates: Does the Minister believe that the Government’s decision to refuse full diplomatic status to the EU ambassador to the UK will help or hinder our ability to build the consensus needed for a successful G7 summit? While he is at it, will he explain why the UK, uniquely in the world, would take such a staggeringly petty, pointless and self-harming decision?

Lord True: My Lords, we have slightly moved away from the rather positive and optimistic approach of this discussion so far. The G7 will embrace the presence of the EU, as always, and of major democracies in the European Union.

Lord Herbert of South Downs: My Lords, the Prime Minister has set a priority for the G7 to develop manufacturing capacity for treatments and vaccines to prevent future pandemics, and that is very welcome. However, there is an existing pandemic other than Covid—tuberculosis—which still kills 1.5 million people a year and for which there is no effective adult vaccine. That is why research and development investment to develop new tools is so important. Will my noble friend commit to protecting that investment, particularly that made by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, despite the regrettable cut in the ODA budget?

Lord True: My Lords, having not ventured to offer an agenda to President Biden, I am certainly not going to offer one to the Chancellor. As with the answer on malaria earlier, obviously, fighting a key disease is a vital common international task. The United Kingdom has been one of the biggest donors to the World Health Organization and one of the biggest supporters of vaccine development.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, earlier this week, Theresa May said that we must bring people together in common cause, but to lead we must live up to our values. She regretted the UK abandoning its 0.7% commitment. Will the Minister detail the Government’s strategy for engaging members in the coming months to ensure that the UK summit turns the tide and brings leaders behind a common message on the post-Covid recovery?

Lord True: My Lords, I know the noble Lord’s personal commitment to some of the causes set out in the G7 agenda. I think there is a wide area of agreement  here. I understand the points made about overseas aid, but we will still be allocating £10,000 million to overseas aid. Based on the latest OECD data, the UK will remain the second-highest donor in the G7.

Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, since the UK is a world leader in setting targets, will the Prime Minister urge the G7 countries, as part of their climate agenda, to set targets for developing countries to step up investment in clean energy and green technology, and to provide technical assistance in developing their non-oil private sector?

Lord True: My Lords, of course, one hopes that all nations will assent to these high ideals, including, for example, China.

Baroness Warsi: My Lords, this follows on from what my noble friend has just said. To build better societies and economies, we need to ensure that all have the opportunity to thrive, free from persecution. In light of the United States recognition of the persecution of Uighurs in China as genocide, will my noble friend confirm that the UK will raise this as an issue for discussion and ask for a co-ordinated response at the G7?

Lord True: I strongly support what my noble friend said and pay tribute to her work in fighting international injustice. Anyone who read my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s Statement to the other place on 12 January in response to human rights violations in Xinjiang against the Uighur people will understand this country’s resolve. We call on other nations to show the same resolve on this deeply troubling question.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.

Heritage Organisations: Coal Supplies
 - Question

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that heritage organisations have access to sufficient supplies of locally produced coal to continue operating after 2021.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: [Inaudible]—of the heritage sector. The legislation, which will come into force from May 2021,  will end the sale of bituminous coal to households in England and lead to significant health benefits. While we acknowledge the indirect impact that this may have on the supply of coal to businesses, it is vital that the Government and the sector continue to work together to transition to cleaner alternatives.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I know that the Minister appreciates the value of the heritage rail sector, but how does he envisage that heritage steam will continue to have access to high-quality bituminous coal if no UK-mined coal is available after next year? Transporting coal great distances from countries such as Russia or Australia adds to CO2 emissions and is expensive. Would it not make more sense for the mining of modest amounts of steam coal to continue in areas such as the north-east and south Wales?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, the legislation that Defra is bringing forward relates to households, and therefore we are working with the sector. It is important that we work with it not only through policy development but in looking at alternatives. Also, I understand that heritage rail has taken steps to improve efficiency and mitigate emissions. Therefore, as I said in my earlier reply, it is important that we work together on this, but this legislation relates to domestic consumption.

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I declare my interest as someone from whose land in Northumberland coal was being extracted until last year, including for heritage railways. The Minister will know that the Government refused permission for a further surface mine at Highthorn in Northumberland, disagreeing in the process with the county council, the planning inspector and the courts. I had no interest in that project, but I know some of the men who lost their jobs as a result. Given that this country has a continuing need for 5 million tonnes of coal a year, mostly for the cement and steel industries, as well as for the heritage rail industry, and that more of it now comes from Russia than any other country, with a far higher carbon footprint, why do the Government prefer to give jobs to people in western Siberia and take them away from people in Northumberland, and to increase emissions as a result while rewarding the persecutors of Alexei Navalny and Sergei Skripal?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that planning permission should not be granted for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable or, if it is not environmentally acceptable, provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts. Clearly we are moving into a situation where in this country we are reducing the use of coal for the very important reason of human health.

Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft. Craft industries have long prided themselves on their commitment to a green economy.  However, coal is required for the firing of certain heritage bricks which have a unique quality. Does the Minister agree that such uses, including coal for steam, are the exceptions proving the rule for the future green economy, and are necessary if we are to preserve our industrial and architectural heritage?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, again, we are working across departments with the heritage sector, because we want to have a long-term future for it. However, we need to find alternative ways of securing the heritage sector while having a cleaner and greener economy and reducing emissions, which are making a significant impact on people’s health.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, we have heard concerns about the importation of coal, and I understand that some heritage rail organisations are currently importing coal, including from Germany. Can the Minister clarify how much coal is currently imported for this purpose, whether the amount is expected to increase, and what the impact of new border controls will be now that we have left the European Union?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My understanding is that, of the 26,000 tonnes of coal used for heritage rail, 90% comes from four British open-cast mines, and therefore any requirements will be about negotiating a suitable ongoing domestic supply. As I said, we want to work with the heritage sector on these matters. My understanding is also that coal imports are overwhelmingly not from EU countries.

Lord German: My Lords, the Great Little Trains of Wales, Snowdonia, Talyllyn, Llangollen and others, are critical for the hospitality offer, yet heritage trains as a whole emit only just about half of the CO2 that people use in their domestic barbeque charcoal briquettes. The challenge is to find a solution to this problem to keep the trains running. I note that in his responses so far the Minister has not yet offered what the potential solutions might be. So will he support research into this matter and, in particular, into whether the residue steam coal in our unsafe, above-ground coal tips can be manufactured into the lump coal needed to ensure that these trains and the jobs they support survive into the future?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I have been very clear that we are working with the heritage sector. Indeed, the legislation that relates to domestic consumption is being phased in so that we can work not only with consumers but with the heritage sector. So I reject the tone of the noble Lord’s question, because this is an area we want to work on. I remind your Lordships that we are doing this because fine particulate matter is very damaging to people whose health is vulnerable. To work on a cleaner health agenda, we need to apply our minds to how we can find alternatives.

Lord Snape: Has the Minister ever travelled behind a steam locomotive? Has he no sense of soul about Britain’s steam heritage? Is he not aware that  steam locomotives are temperamental creatures that depend on a certain supply of bituminous coal to work effectively and efficiently? Is he, as a member of a Government who have frozen fuel duties for the past 11 years and done far more damage to the environment than any steam locomotive, really trying to tell us that 35,000 tonnes of coal will damage the environment to such an extent?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord heard my first reply. This legislation is about domestic consumption. In people’s houses the increase in fine particulate matter from domestic consumption has caused concern, and we will not meet our legal and binding obligations unless we attend to this. I should also say that two villages away from where I am sitting is the Mid-Suffolk Light Railway, affectionally known as the “Middy”. I am well aware of it, I have travelled on it and I enjoy it very much, but we need to work across the heritage sector, not only with the rail sector, because this is a very important health issue.

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: My Lords, while I have genuine sympathy with heritage railways and others, such as the owners of traction engines and the like, does my noble friend agree that this should certainly not be a reason for opening any new coal mines in this country while importing the type of coal required is still possible? As my noble friend said, it is worth reminding other noble Lords that this is being done for health reasons.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: I have said what the National Planning Policy Framework states, and I agree with my noble friend on why we need to do this and why we also need to work with the heritage sector.

Lord Mann: Does the Minister not realise that if you go to places such as the north of England on a weekend and see thousands of people stood around, waiting, you know that a steam locomotive is going to be travelling through and people are waiting to view it? Does the Minister agree that there is no finer sight in this country than such a vision? Will he guarantee that it will be there for my grandchildren?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, that is absolutely what we are working on with the heritage sector because we want a viable future for these great heritage assets of our country. However, I go back to the fact that this is legislation reducing and changing our requirements for domestic consumption. I fear that some noble Lords are misinterpreting that. We are working with the heritage sector because we want a long-term, viable future for it.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to those noble Lords I was unable to call. We now come to the third Oral Question.

Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
 - Question

Bishop of Coventry: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the Government have been clear that they will not sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We do not believe that this treaty will bring us closer to a world without such weapons. The Government believe that the best way to achieve our collective goal of a world without nuclear weapons is through gradual multilateral disarmament, negotiated using a step-by-step approach. We must take account of the international security environment and work under the framework of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Bishop of Coventry: I thank the Minister for his reply. Nevertheless, as of tomorrow the TPNW will be no less a reality for the UK than for countries that support it. It will be no less a reality for states that possess nuclear weapons than for those that do not. The UN Secretary-General has described this new treaty as
“a further pillar of the disarmament regime”
and therefore fully compatible with the NPT. I ask the Minister, since the new treaty and its underlying humanitarian motivations will loom large over any future discussion of our non-proliferation responsibilities, what preparations are being made by the Government to engage with it constructively? Will they commit to attend, as an observer state, the first meeting of states party to the treaty, as Sweden and Switzerland are doing?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I hear what the right reverend Prelate says but, to be clear, the United Kingdom will not support, sign or ratify the TPNW. The reasons are very clear to us: it fails to offer a realistic path to global nuclear disarmament and, importantly, risks undermining the effective non-proliferation and disarmament architecture that we already have in place, in particular the work that has already been achieved with key partners on the NPT.

Baroness Blower: I declare my interest as in the register. I am compelled to repeat the question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. Given the global importance of this treaty, will the Government consider sending in an observer capacity a delegation when the treaty parties convene later this year, whether in person or virtually? Clearly, in observer status the Government might learn something of interest.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we are fully aware of the challenges that currently confront us on the global  stage and the importance of ensuring that we see non-proliferation. There are major challenges with this treaty, including the fact that it does not look at the existing security architecture, including our obligations to NATO. It does not look at how we deal with the threats from nations such as the DPRK. My Answer was very clear about what our belief is on the treaty. If parties to that treaty engage with us bilaterally, of course, we will continue to engage with them on wide range of matters.

Lord Walney: The Minister is being characteristically courteous but does he not agree that every Member of this House, not least the right reverend Prelate, has a responsibility not to deceive themselves that this treaty could be an effective mechanism for achieving our shared goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons? Indeed, suggesting that it is undermines that very goal.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I have to disagree with the noble Lord. I accept that the treaty the right reverend Prelate talks about has noble intent but there are existing mechanisms, treaties and obligations that have ensured the decline in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, with the treaties that we are part of and the partnerships that we have forged, since the end of the Cold War we have seen a 50% reduction in our own arsenal. While respecting the right reverend Prelate—and, of course, all noble Lords in this House—on this occasion I do not hold the same view.

Lord Bates: I welcome my noble friend’s confirmation that it has never been the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to have the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons but to seek a world free from all nuclear weapons. This is stated in the national security strategy, set out in pillar 2 of the non-proliferation treaty and stated in the first resolution of the UN General Assembly, held 75 years ago this weekend across the road in the Methodist Central Hall. How could my noble friend use this anniversary to advance our declared ambition of the complete elimination of all these weapons of mass destruction before it is too late?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure my noble friend, who speaks with a great deal of insight and expertise in this area, that we remain very much committed. Our commitment to our obligations and our adherence to the rules-based system of international law and the treaties that we are part of will ensure the very objective he seeks and I seek as well.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, one of the key aspects of non-proliferation in recent years has been the JCPOA. The UK has been involved in this but under President Trump the US pulled out. What are her Majesty’s Government doing about talking to President Biden about re-engaging in the JCPOA?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, we look forward to fruitful discussions with the United States on a range of issues and look forward to working with it on this important priority as well.

Lord Polak: Following on from that question, only this week Her Majesty’s Government stated as part of the E3 that they are deeply concerned by Iran’s announcement that is producing uranium metal. There is no credible civilian use for uranium. Will my noble friend the Minister take the earliest opportunity to discuss with his new counterpart in the Biden Administration how to strengthen any deals with Iran to ensure the disbanding of its nuclear programme in its entirety and, at the same time, stop its destabilising behaviour in the region?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I assure my noble friend that on both his points we will be engaging constructively with the United States and other allies in this respect.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, Iran has incrementally violated the JCPOA. It would be delusional to return to it and to drop sanctions. Iran has achieved uranium enrichment levels of 20%. What are the Government doing to ensure that Iran halts this dangerous escalation?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that Iran’s continued non-compliance with its nuclear commitments is deeply concerning and seriously undermines the non-proliferation benefits of the agreement. Iran faces a stark choice—to continue on its current path and face growing isolation or to come back to the negotiating table. We hope it will choose the latter course.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any advance that has been made in any of the conventions on nuclear weapons so far has been achieved in the context of firm undertaking by nuclear powers, including us, to steadily reduce the number of nuclear weapons at their disposal? There seems to be quite a lot of room for doubt about the commitment of some nuclear powers at the moment. Is it not a priority for the British Government to get together with the new Administration in the United States, and indeed with the French, to discuss how we should be carrying the new situation forward?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to engage with the US and with the P5 process. As he will be aware, we led on that last year. We will work very constructively with the French, who lead on the P5 this year.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, for the purposes of investment, this treaty puts nuclear weapons clearly in the category of controversial weapons. Does the Minister agree that investment in such weapons by responsible and ethical pension funds and other investors will quickly become completely unacceptable?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the nuclear industry and its wider energy benefits are also part of the debate. We remain very committed to a minimum but credible independent nuclear deterrent.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, are the Government aware of the European Leadership Network’s call for a sustained, open-ended and regular panel on strategic nuclear risk reduction?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, if I may, I will respond to the noble Lord in writing once I understand the full context of his question. However, as I have already articulated, we are working with key P5 partners—including the key European partner in this respect, the French.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We come to the fourth Oral Question.

Alexei Navalny
 - Question

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Russia about the arrest of Alexei Navalny.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I begin by extending my best wishes and those of your Lordships’ House for health and happiness to the noble Lord, who I understand is 79 years young today.
It is appalling that Alexei Navalny has been detained on arbitrary charges. We raise his case regularly and directly with the Russian Government. On 15 January, immediately prior to his return, the United Kingdom’s ambassador to Moscow raised our concerns with the Russian foreign ministry. My colleague, Minister Morton, who is responsible for our relations, also raised this issue with her Russian counterpart in November 2020. As the noble Lord will know, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement on 18 January calling for Mr Navalny’s immediate and unconditional release.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: First, I thank the Minister for his very kind words. Returning to the subject, does he not agree that Alexei Navalny has shown tremendous bravery by returning to Russia after the assassination attempt? Will the Minister agree that the Government might show support for his release, backing it up by increasing sanctions against the Putin-supporting oligarchs based in London in relation to their investments, property purchases and travel to the United Kingdom? That would show some real support in trying to get Alexei Navalny out of prison.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I agree with his sentiments, and I look forward to working with him in this respect. Of course, we keep further sanctions under review but, as he will know, following the poisoning of Alexei Navalny last year, we issued proscriptions against six individuals and the State Scientific-Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, Mr Putin constantly challenges the global risk-based order and his behaviour is erratic, whether it is attempts to kill political opponents, such as Navalny, a WMD attack on our nation’s soil, a stream of outrageous damaging global cyberattacks, provoking flights into our airspace, a build-up of nuclear submarines threatening our deterrent, or actions in Ukraine, et cetera. It is difficult to know what he hopes to achieve, but it is certain that there is an increasing risk of miscalculation, which is highly dangerous and could lead to hostilities. Is the Minister concerned about this risk, and should there not be urgent action to rejuvenate arms control agreements, military-to-military dialogue and confidence-building measures, such as New START and the open skies agreement?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great expertise and insight; I agree with the thrust of what he proposes and the specifics that he mentioned. We want to work with Russia and other partners on the very objectives that he has outlined, but the detention of the main opposition leader demonstrates a continuing decrease in democracy and human rights in Russia, and we will continue to hold it accountable for that.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords,
“Confident political leaders do not fear competing voices, nor”
see the need,
“to commit violence against or wrongfully detain political opponents.”
Those are not my words but those of Mr Mike Pompeo, the outgoing United States Secretary of State, with whom I rarely agree. Does the Minister agree?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I do agree with former Secretary of State Pompeo’s words. That is why we work very closely with the United States in dealing with the issues and challenges that Russia brings to the world.

Baroness Helic: Alexei Navalny’s latest investigation into what he has called the world’s “biggest bribe”—Putin’s sprawling palace at the Black Sea—is a reminder that corruption is endemic in autocracy and that tackling it undermines the rule of strong men such as Putin. With that in mind, will the Government continue to encourage greater transparency over Russian financial activities around the world, including in the United Kingdom, and take steps to combat money laundering? Can my noble friend the Minister update us on the progress that has been made on this since the Intelligence and Security Committee published its report last year?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I apologise: some of my noble friend’s questions were not quite clear. However, I believe that she referred to the ISC report on Russia. As she will know, the Government’s response was published immediately after its release. Russia is a top national security priority for the Government, and we will introduce new legislation concerning the security services and law enforcement.  As she will be aware, the Government are currently looking at how our sanctions regime can be further extended to deal with corruption and illicit financing.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, having worked in a Russian ministry in Moscow for three years in the early 1990s, I am hugely aware of the impact on the Russian people of the appalling treatment of the extraordinarily brave Mr Navalny. How on earth he brings himself to go back to Russia, I do not understand. Will the Government support a statement from our Parliament to the Russian Parliament expressing our strong support for the fundamental rights of Mr Navalny and the Russian people to free speech and freedom of assembly?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, on the principle that the noble Baroness raises, it is absolutely for Parliament to decide on issuing such statements. However, she will have seen the strong statement that we issued with partners on this very issue.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government were keeping matters under review. Returning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, it is now 15 months since the publication of the Russia report and the Government have yet to implement even one of the 21 recommendations. There are enormous concerns that the City of London is still acting as a haven for dark money connected to human rights abuses in Russia. What steps will the Government take to ensure that UK businesses are not complicit in human rights violations in Russia?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I believe that I have already addressed, in part, the issues of human rights and sanctions, and of course I will be talking to the noble Lord as we bring forward some of the broader sanction applications. On the report, we have acted. I have already alluded to legislation, and we continue to step up our activity, both domestically and internationally, to tackle illicit finance. The National Crime Agency has increased the number of investigations into corrupt leads and, among other things, the UK has used existing immigration powers in dozens of cases relating to hostile state activity. We will also review all tier 1 investor visas granted before 5 April 2015.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we all recognise that the UK, as a democracy, is far more open to Russian influence than Russia is to British. Does the Minister agree that Russian interference, including finance in British politics, is at least as severe a threat to UK sovereignty as the European Court of Justice? Does he accept that the Government’s response to the ISC report is widely considered to have been “defensive and uninformative”? Can the Government assure us that they are working actively to tighten the law on foreign agents in British politics, on financial contributions from abroad to political parties and on espionage?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. On the question of interference in elections, he will be aware that various  legal matters are already under way, so I cannot speak specifically to those. On the other matters that he raised, I have already said that we are acting, and will be responding, and have already taken steps, as our response to the ISC report has demonstrated.

Lord Balfe: My Lords, Russia, at its own request, rejoined the Council of Europe a few months ago but does not seem to have grasped the fundamental values of that council. Sanctions are really water off the duck’s back. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, came a lot nearer to the truth as to what we need to do if we are going to have an effective impact. Does the Minister agree that we need to join Berlin and Paris in encouraging Russia to follow the principles inherent in democratic societies and the underlying principles of the Council of Europe, which it was so keen to rejoin?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, in the interest of time, I totally agree with my noble friend, and we will work closely with Germany and France in that respect.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, the Russian Federation has failed to respond to the overwhelming evidence that it poisoned the opposition leader using Novichok, for which of course it has previous form. Addressing the EU last year, Alexei Navalny said that sanctions should target the money of the oligarchs who hold Putin’s assets. This lack of adherence to a rules-based international order has gone on for too long. Does the Minister agree now that there should be direct consequences, as suggested by Mr Navalny, for this outrageous breach of all the norms of civilised states, all of which is compounded by the subsequent arrest and jailing of Mr Navalny on his return to his own country?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, suffice to say that I agree with the noble Lord. I add that we have already taken quite specific actions, both through multilateral organisations such as the OPCW and specifically on issues of sanctions related directly to the Novichok poisoning of Mr Navalny. We will continue to work with partners and see what further steps we can take. As those come to bear, I will of course share them with your Lordships’ House.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.

Overseas Development Aid: Covid-19 Vaccination
 - Private Notice Question

Lord Sarfraz: Asked by Lord Sarfraz
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that access to Covid-19 vaccination is available as part of their overseas development aid work to vulnerable people in less economically developed countries.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the United Kingdom has committed £548 million to the COVAX Advance Market Commitment, the AMC, which is the international initiative to support global equitable access to vaccines. Through match funding the commitment was leveraged to encourage other donors to commit $1 billion in 2020. The commitment will support access to Covid-19 vaccines for up to 92 developing countries by contributing to the supply of 1 billion doses, with deliveries set to begin in the first quarter of 2021.

Lord Sarfraz: My Lords, while the United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of the COVAX Facility, the director-general of the WHO has raised fresh concerns about developing countries being left behind. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider approaches to supplement COVAX using our own economic development institutions? For example, could we make UK export finance easily available to countries importing the Oxford vaccine, and could we encourage the CDC to urgently support local vaccine supply chains?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My noble friend makes two very practical points, especially that on the CDC. I will certainly look at what we can do. To be absolutely clear, we remain committed to the COVAX Facility. We want to provide clarity to all that we will continue to support that facility, which we believe has the infrastructure to ensure the best, most equitable and fastest distribution to the most vulnerable around the world. However, my noble friend makes some practical points and I will certainly explore those further.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Does the Minister agree that, while priority must be given to vaccinating as many people in the United Kingdom as possible, it is also vital to help protect less developed countries, which may develop other strains of Covid-19 as we have already witnessed? Can the Minister assure the House that the UK Government will not seek any payment for vaccinations or equipment from those countries? Will the Government support them to develop and deploy the skills and expertise that have been developed by our own dedicated scientists and doctors in this country?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I assure the noble Baroness that, as vaccine distribution picks up pace and other vaccines come online, we remain committed  to the COVAX Facility. The noble Baroness puts forward some practical points about British expertise and how this can be further leveraged in terms of support. Regarding specific charges that may be levied, let me assure her that the whole basis of the AMC within the COVAX Facility is to ensure that the most vulnerable are not prohibited from or limited in their access to the vaccine because of a lack of money.

Baroness Sheehan: My Lords, last week Dr Anthony Fauci from the US National Institutes of Health endorsed the WHO’s Covid-19 Technology Access Pool, the C-TAP. This is a key mechanism to support efforts to scale up the manufacture of vaccines for all. We are currently not supporting it. Considering the urgent need to respond to new variants of the virus, will the UK Government follow Dr Fauci’s lead?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I understand from reports coming from the United States that Dr Fauci’s expertise will be fully leveraged within the World Health Organization, as he will be leading the United States delegation now that the US has rejoined the World Health Organization, which we welcome. As details of the Covid-19 Technology Access Pool emerge from the WHO, our Government are committed to assessing how it could add value to existing innovation and access infrastructure such as the Medicines Patent Pool, which we helped to set up 10 years ago. We are looking at it very carefully. We will work closely with the United States and, importantly, the World Health Organization in this respect.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Baroness Manningham-Buller. No? I call the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, we must welcome warmly the exceptional moral leadership in this remarkable donation to the COVAX programme, which I think is the largest of any country. However, in order to make the money work, and to follow up what the British ambassador, Julian Braithwaite, said at the WHO, we need a global vaccination campaign if we are to overcome this global pandemic. There are three particular obstructions to overcome. One relates to the use of surplus supplies of vaccine; for example, Canada has ordered more than five times what it needs for its population. The second is misinformation, mythical dangers or false stories being deliberately spread about the vaccines. Thirdly, in many parts of the countries that will need the vaccine, there are immense logistical difficulties in distributing it. To make the most of the financial leadership we have set and given our expertise, experience and success in the rollout in this country, what will the Government do to validate that gift by overcoming these three challenges?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the most reverend Primate makes some very pertinent and important points. On the issue of countries which have oversubscribed, some countries have already announced plans for that. We are not in that position, but others have announced how they will look at  distribution. We would implore them to consider that the most equitable way to support that distribution is through the COVAX Facility and the AMC, for the very reasons that have been put forward; namely, that they have the most effective infrastructure and networks to allow for equitable and fast distribution of the vaccine as it is rolled out.
I take fully the most reverend Primate’s point on misinformation. At a time when people are concerned and worried, it is highly regrettable that some in the world are putting out misinformation on vaccines which have already gone through all stages of testing and have been approved. We must come together to tackle that and provide proper information.
The most reverend Primate’s point on logistics was well made. As vaccine distribution continues, we will work through our networks within the FCDO and the UN to further strengthen NGOs; for example, with training and by ensuring that front-line healthcare workers in the field in developing parts of the world are vaccinated first.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I thank my noble friend for the assurances he has given the House about his department. Will he ensure that every effort is made to focus medical help to Africa on preventive vaccines, but not only against Covid-19? Can use be made of the Virtual Doctors organisation, which can assist in setting up a preventive system in African countries?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is currently on a visit to Africa, where issues concerning Covid-19 and the vaccine will be addressed directly, as they will be by the Minister for Africa. In her latter point, my noble friend also makes a practical suggestion about distribution. As more vaccines become readily available and distribution evolves, we will take this forward as part of our planning and share it with other partners as well.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, the great news from Washington this morning is that the US is joining the COVAX facility. I hope this will lead to many more opportunities. Last Friday, I met representatives of the Africa CDC who have more recent experience and expertise in conducting mass public vaccination programmes than do we in the UK. What discussions has the Minister’s department had with organisations in the global south, so that we can learn from them? They also highlighted the secondary economic impacts through healthcare and gender inequality. What preparations is the FCDO making to prevent there being a development mountain to climb after the pandemic subsides?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second question, he will appreciate that at the Gavi summit we saw a real commitment by the world community, led by the United Kingdom, not just to deal with the global pandemic but to ensure that the other challenges we face—particularly on vaccine distribution, including against polio and  cholera—are not forgotten. These remain live challenges in many parts of the world. That underlines our commitment to ensuring that such challenges remain very much on the priority radar. Covid-19 vaccines and their distribution are our primary focus. I agree that we should be looking at the experience of all our partners. There are NGOs working throughout Africa that have real experience of dealing with the Ebola outbreak. We should learn from that. I have spoken to leading scientists in Pakistan who are still dealing with polio, both there and in Afghanistan. They were able to deploy quickly certain measures to deal with Covid-19 when it happened. This is a learning curve, and we must work together to ensure optimum outcomes not just for one country, but for us all.

Baroness Brinton: The UK is rightly proud of the leadership of many Governments over many years in Gavi. It was alarming to hear on the “Today” programme yesterday that only 25 vaccine injections had been delivered into arms so far in developing countries. Can the Minister reassure the House that the UK’s extra orders for the Pfizer and AZ vaccines have not caused any delays in the urgent rollout of the Gavi orders?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I, too, heard that announcement. As Minister for South Asia, I know that there are large parts of India, for example, where the population is highly vulnerable and suffers extreme poverty. The Indian authorities are part of the rollout. I have also heard that the vaccine is now being delivered to Bangladesh. The Government are stressing to all our partners that support for the COVAX facility, particularly the AMC, is a key part of ensuring equitable distribution for all.

Lord Bird: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their vaccination record. I am about to have mine, so I thank them. The Big Issue works with people on the streets all over the world—and here I declare an interest. Vaccinating street dwellers against Covid is very important, but they also need nutrition and support beyond that. Can the Minister’s department indicate whether anything might be added to the Covid vaccine that could keep these people healthy?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, helping people not just in the United Kingdom but across the world. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and look forward to practical suggestions from him for how we can further strengthen our work in this area. I can assure him that we are looking particularly at famine and nutrition in fragile states. This is very much part of the development elements with which the FCDO is engaged.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, given the devastating impact of Covid-19 on low and middle-income countries, the need and the demand for overseas development assistance has never been greater. This is one of many reasons why the cut to the 0.7% is so regrettable. Can the Minister reassure me that spending on health infrastructure and on, for example, data systems, cold  chain storage and the training of healthcare workers will be protected from the aid cuts? It is crucial in the fight against this and future pandemics around the world.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, answering my noble friend presents me with a bit of a challenge because, not so long ago, she was leading on this area, but I hope I can provide her with practical information in every sense. I look forward to working with her further on the prioritisations within ODA. My noble friend knows better than most the challenges that this has presented. I can assure her that global health remains a top priority for the United Kingdom. We are focused on overcoming Covid-19, as well as on supporting more resilient and healthier populations in developing countries. I currently have wider responsibilities within the FCDO. We are looking specifically at country plans to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected and that other issues such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on famine, do not present additional problems as we challenge the pandemic. We will ensure that the principles close to my noble friend’s heart continue to guide our work within the FCDO.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed. I apologise to noble Lords whom it has not been possible to call.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
 - Motions to Approve

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That the Regulations laid before the House on 1, 9 and 22 December 2020 be approved.
Relevant documents: 38th, 40th and 41st Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 January.
Motions agreed.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
 - Order of Consideration Motion

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 4, Clauses 7 to 19, Schedule 5, Clauses 20 and 21, Schedule 6, Clauses 22 and 23, Schedule 7, Clauses 24 and 25, Schedule 8, Clauses 26 and 27, Schedule 9, Clause 28, Schedule 10, Clauses 29 to 36, Schedule 11, Clauses 37 to 45, Schedule 12, Clauses 46 to 48, Schedule 13, Clauses 49 to 53, Title.
Motion agreed.
Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed in today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on the group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. We will now begin.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
 - Third Reading

Relevant documents: 19th and 33rd Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 10th Report from the Constitution Committee

  
Clause 17: Power to make regulations about medical devices

Amendment 1

Lord Sharkey: Moved by Lord Sharkey
1: Clause 17, page 12, line 4, leave out from “subject” to end of line 8 and insert “to the super-affirmative procedure set out in section 51”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to correct the drafting.

Lord Sharkey: My Lords, Amendments 1 to 8, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jolly, are to correct drafting. None of them, individually or  collectively, alters the meaning or substance of the parts of the Bill that they would amend. I beg to move Amendment 1.

Lord Bethell: The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made his points cogently on Report. We do not intend to oppose the amendments on the Marshalled List, as they are technical tidying amendments, consequential on those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that were passed on Report.

Lord Sharkey: I am very grateful to the Minister.
Amendment 1 agreed.

  
Clause 21: Information systems

Amendment 2

Lord Sharkey: Moved by Lord Sharkey
2: Clause 21, page 14, line 21, leave out from “subject” to end of line 25 and insert “to the super-affirmative procedure set out in section 51”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to correct the drafting.
Amendment 2 agreed.

  
Clause 52: Super-affirmative procedure: Northern Ireland

Amendments 3 to 8

Lord Sharkey: Moved by Lord Sharkey
3: Clause 52, page 34, line 32, leave out “section 11(1), section 17(1) and section 21(1)” and insert “and section 11(1)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to correct the drafting.
4: Clause 52, page 34, line 36, leave out “order” and insert “regulations”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to correct the drafting.
5: Clause 52, page 34, line 43, leave out “ an order” and insert “regulations”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to correct the drafting.
6: Clause 52, page 35, line 5, leave out “order in its initial form, or a revised draft order” and insert “regulations in their original form, or revised draft regulations”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to correct the drafting.
7: Clause 52, page 35, line 8, leave out “order”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to correct the drafting.
8: Clause 52, page 35, line 10, leave out “order”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to correct the drafting.
Amendments 3 to 8 agreed.

Motion

Lord Bethell: Moved by Lord Bethell
That the Bill do now pass.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, the Bill before us is quite different from the one we started with, but it is no doubt much better. That is entirely because of the huge value of your Lordships’ challenge and scrutiny. We have held over 50 meetings and considered 249 amendments, and the result is a tribute to the care and patience of noble Lords, for which I give profound thanks. It is also, if I may say so, a tribute to the workings of the hybrid House, which have kept legislation moving under difficult circumstances.
We would not have reached this position without the thoughtful, collaborative and constructive input of noble Lords, to whom, I pay tribute—in particular, to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Wheeler, on the Opposition Front Bench, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I also thank, from the Cross Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. They have all brought their immense experience and wisdom to our debates, to improve this legislation. And when it comes to wisdom and experience, I must also pay tribute to those from these Benches, especially my noble friend Lord Lansley, my predecessor, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who have all been of enormous help in enabling us to arrive at a consensus across the House. My noble friend Lord Howe has been a generous mentor, and my noble friend Lady Penn is a superlative Whip, both shepherding the process charmingly, discreetly and effectively.
I thank most emphatically my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She has spoken of the importance of compassion, of the voices she has listened to, and of the paramount importance of patient safety. I have heard her, and I support her endeavour. She has the support of the House in her efforts, and we have collectively made significant progress towards her admirable goal.
I also thank officials on the Bill team, particularly Alice Clouter, and those in my private office, particularly Tilly McEwan. They have all worked tirelessly and expertly. I cannot give thanks to all the other champions in the House who have made influential interventions, but I am definitely very grateful to them.
I cannot hide my excitement about the future. While the Bill process is near its conclusion, we are at the end of the beginning of an exciting new regulatory system—a system that protects patients and enables innovation. It is with that vision of the future, as well as my gratitude to all, that I beg to move.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, at this stage of the Bill, we take a few moments to congratulate ourselves and thank those who have made it possible to get this far. First, I thank my own Bill team, who  have worked so hard, particularly Rhian Copple in the Lords Opposition office, and my noble friends Lady Wheeler and Lord Hunt—and, indeed, my noble friend Lady Andrews and others, who popped up here and there to support us.
We should all congratulate ourselves because, despite the conditions in which we have worked this autumn and winter, we have managed to build effective communications which have made it possible to make considerable progress in improving the Bill in many ways, as the Minister said. I think we can say that we did our job, as the revising Chamber.
The fact that we ended up with only three Divisions on Report is a testimony to way in which the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, his Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and his adviser, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the very hard-working Bill team led by Alice Clouter, handled the Bill. They listened, they discussed, they considered and they revised, which is really all that one can ask. This is the Minister’s first Bill, and I congratulate him on leading his team and handling what is always a baptism of fire for any Minister.
I am delighted to agree with the Minister and say that we are sending back a very different, and much improved, Bill. We have managed to address many of the big-ticket items, ranging from data sharing to human tissue, and, ultimately, patient safety. I thank participants across the House. Like the Minister, I mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I also thank everybody else who has taken part in the many discussions and given us the benefit of their wisdom, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord O’Shaughnessy.
First Do No Harm paved the way for the creation of an independent patient safety commissioner, and I think that changed the way in which the Bill was handled, because it is now, as it should be, a patient safety Bill. For that, I really wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
Finally, I want to thank the organisations who have given us their support and expertise, which is particularly important for those of us in opposition. I am very grateful to the DPRR and Constitution Committees for their insightful scrutiny, which sometimes is painful for the Government but is almost always helpful to us; the Lords Library; and, for us, the University of Birmingham, the British Dietetic Association, Advanced Accelerator Applications, the Association of British HealthTech Industries, Cancer Research UK and, in particular, the BMA. I am very grateful for the expert briefs that they have given us.
Stakeholder engagement will remain key for many years to come, for while the Bill will soon pass—as the Minister said—the task of creating a post-Brexit medicines and medical devices regulatory regime is far from finished. I look forward to working with stakeholders and the Minister to make sure that we move forward in the best possible fashion. We have given ourselves a good start.

Baroness Jolly: My Lords, Bills come and go. This Bill started its life as one to tidy up regulatory issues to do with the new post-EU world. In 10 years’ time, the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill is one I may not list as one of the most important I have worked on; I hope that the forthcoming mental health Bill will fit that spot. If remembered at all, it will be for the introduction of a commissioner for patient safety, born out of the First Do No Harm report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
There will need to be changes in the House of Commons to make the Bill really fit for purpose. The Minister has indicated the Government’s intention to lay amendments, and I am grateful to him for involving Peers in that process. When does he anticipate Second Reading in the Commons?
As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, many people make a Bill, and they do not all sit in the Chamber. In particular, I thank both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for giving us time to talk to the Bill team and allow them to explain new government amendments. Of course, I should not forget the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and her team; the noble Lord, Lord Patel; my noble friend Lord Sharkey; staff in opposition offices; and others who certainly made the Bill better, turning it into a workable piece of primary legislation.

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I could not let this opportunity pass without expressing my gratitude to all those who have played such a vital part in drafting, scrutinising and improving this important Bill. I know that it will now return to the other place. I wish it a fair wind and hope that we will soon see it enacted.
Throughout, noble Lords from all sides of the House have, quite rightly, focused on using the Bill to strengthen patient safety. Safety is now threaded throughout the Bill. I do so welcome that; it is something that the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, have both just mentioned. We have enshrined a very important safety recommendation in the Bill: we will now have a proper database to record the medical devices that are used and on which we and patients will be able to track their outcomes and detect safety more quickly. I cannot overstate just how important that is. Without this data, the healthcare system has been flying blind.
I have been very touched by the kind and thoughtful expressions of support from so many noble Lords in general debates and, in particular, for my amendments, which were triggered by the recommendations in First Do No Harm. The report enshrined in me that, at every opportunity, we must be reminded that the NHS is run for the people and is paid for by the people. Right now, the NHS is demonstrating a total commitment to saving lives and defeating this deadly virus—a virus that, as it sweeps around the world, devastates lives, livelihoods, education, personal budgets and a national aspiration for a better world.
In the dark days of the Second World War, Beveridge was preparing for a better Britain. In these dark days, there is a need to make plans—not just to return to what was there before but to look forward to something better. I believe that the patient safety commissioner  will provide something better and will improve patient safety and healthcare as a whole. I was thrilled that so many of your Lordships lent me their support in calling for this; I know that their voices made all the difference. I thank the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, for their generous remarks today.
The new commissioner will certainly have a challenging task. We continue to get a flow of calls, letters and emails recounting lives devastated by hormone pregnancy tests, the risks of sodium valproate taken by pregnant women and the insertion of surgical mesh. Only this week, a woman wrote to me saying: “I was left devastated that I was never given the truth by my consultant. I have suffered incredible, irreparable harm since 2010 and have lost my loving intimacy with my husband. I suffer constant pain and am unable to walk too far. I am not able to enjoy the interaction with nine grand- children and, most of all, I do not feel like a female at all”. The patient safety commissioner will have to respond to these sorts of concerns rapidly—more rapidly than we found during our review. In doing so, the commissioner will prevent avoidable harm and, I am sure, save lives.
In my last amendment, concerning redress for patients unavoidably harmed, I was heartened by the Minister’s response. The Minster told us:
“We are moved by the stories; I am totally and utterly sympathetic to the situation that the patients affected by these conditions find themselves in on a day-to-day basis. They are still living through it today. I would like to regard myself as a compassionate person”.
We recognise that. He went on to say that
“it is not appropriate to make policy on this kind of matter through primary legislation”;—[Official Report, 14/1/21; col. 963.]
perhaps he is right on that. He also went on to tell us that work is under way. I just ask: what work? When will it be delivered? These injured women and their families need answers. They deserve justice and some redress—and, what is more, they need it now.
Although my amendment was not carried, my noble friend knows that I am not one to give up easily. Indeed, we have established a powerful all-party parliamentary group. Its purpose is to see the remaining recommendations in my report implemented. On Tuesday, the First Do No Harm APPG will meet to hear the Minister for Safety, Nadine Dorries, address the group. Of course, everybody is welcome to join.
In summing up, I reserve special thanks for my noble friends the Minister, Lady Penn and Lord Howe. They have been a formidable trio, guiding the Bill through and designing and tabling a lot of government amendments. I know that steering through important legislation and improving it with a pandemic raging all around has been a most demanding task. The Minister has risen to that challenge. He has chosen and shown endless patience with me personally; he has listened; and, above all, he has acted. I also know that he has been truly moved by the suffering he has heard about, as he said today, and that this has motivated him to act. I thank him very much.
I also thank the officials who, behind the scenes, have worked so very hard on the Bill, with endless meetings, conversations and negotiations—not least in bringing forward a whole range of government amendments. They are warned: no doubt we shall  meet again for the raft of statutory instruments that will be before the House. But, actually, I look forward to that.
I consider this Bill a reforming Bill—perhaps a small step, not a great stride, but we must look on the bright side. I congratulate all noble Lords who put forward the other important amendments on medicines and medical devices that have been accepted by the Government, as we have just witnessed. With an independent patient safety commissioner, who will listen, especially to the patient groups and campaigners, put all patients first and fight for their causes, a significant change may arise. Out of Covid darkness, with the astonishing example set by NHS staff, I believe a better system will emerge.
In a time of war, Beveridge realised the aspirations of people had changed. In the time of Covid, they are changing now, and we have to acknowledge that patients and the public voice must be heard. If private enterprise can bring forward a vaccine in under a year, Ministers, parliamentarians, the department and the healthcare system should rise to the challenge of reform towards a totally patient-oriented service. That is what I believe is essential for the future of our country and our future health and well-being.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Cumberlege; I pay fulsome tribute to her and the team that, through her leadership, produced the report, First Do No Harm, from which we see this Bill. I would like to join her and others in paying tribute to my noble friends Lord Bethell, Lady Penn and Lord Howe, who I had the honour to work with, as a humble bag carrier, in the other place.
In recalling my interest with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, I would like to make one plea to the Minister as this Bill proceeds to the other place. For clinical trials and patient safety, which is the focus of the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support, we need to rely on patients making their data available and giving consent for it to be used for clinical purposes. During the passage of the Bill, I raised what has now been seen in Denmark—a huge reaction against patient data having been abused and used for commercial purposes against the wishes, and without the consent, of patients. Were that to happen here, it would detract from the fundamental good of this Bill and the wider public benefit to the NHS and future patients of sharing the clinical data that permeates this Bill. I urge the Minister, therefore, to look seriously at the practical question that remains of how patient consent will be obtained and confidentiality respected, particularly in meeting the requirements of clinical need. But I am delighted to have played even a small part in the passage of this Bill, and we look forward to its passage through the other place.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to express my thanks to the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and all the other noble Lords who have been taking part in this legislation, in particular those who spoke to and supported my amendments from all sides of the House.
Much has already been said about what we have achieved. I know that time is running short, so I will try and be brief. Of course I congratulate, first and foremost, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for achieving what I had tried before—getting patient safety on statute. I did not have her tenacity or clout. So, many congratulations to her and, I believe, the commissioner for patient safety, who will make patient safety stronger in the whole of the health service.
I am very grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the many meetings they arranged with us to hear our concerns and find solutions. I know it is a privilege for me to speak in person, but I hope all my colleagues on the Cross Benches—more than 12 of them—who took part in the Bill will feel I can speak on their behalf to thank Ministers and all other noble Lords.
I am also grateful to members of the Bill team, who were very helpful at the many meetings that the Minister arranged. And I am grateful to outsiders, in particular the University of Birmingham faculty of law, which worked very hard to produce the details of the legislation. Thank you all.

Lord O'Shaughnessy: My Lords, there is not much more to say that has not already been said by other noble Lords. I just wanted to use this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to particular groups. The Bill team and private office, which have worked so hard to produce this legislation, are amazing in what they do and often unsung. It is important we recognise them.
Secondly, I thank those patients and patient groups who have provided so much moving information and testimony that has informed our work. After all, we serve them, and I hope and believe that we have served them through improving this Bill in this House in the way we have.
Thirdly, I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. When I was in government and we commissioned her report, I could not have dreamed that she would have done such a thorough job and carried it with her customary tenacity, to the point where we have, on statute, the commitment to a patient safety commissioner. It is such an important step forward and it will make a massive difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in this country. For that, we should all be proud of this step—and she in particular should be.
Finally, I thank the Minister—my noble friend Lord Bethell—the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but particularly the Minister; he has performed with absolute aplomb in the difficult 10 months since he became a Minister. He has so much on his plate, yet throughout this process he has listened, engaged and acted in a way that does him enormous credit, and I really want to pay tribute to him for everything he has done.
I share the Minister’s optimism that, having produced this Bill, we can produce a regulatory system for the UK outside Europe that is the envy of the world, that makes sure that every company, every charity and every researcher who wants to bring a transformative  therapy into a health system will come to us because of what we are able to do and how we are able to bring them through into mainstream treatment, just as we are doing with vaccines and have done with the recovery trial. That is the template, and I look forward to working with my noble friends and other noble Lords to make that happen in the months to come.

Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am extremely touched by the kind words of noble Lords and pay tribute once again to the hard work of all those concerned. I look forward to the future—to, as my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said, the opportunity for patient safety and innovation to be enhanced by this Bill. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order given in Today’s List. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on a group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
 - Third Reading

Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 19th Report from the Constitution Committee

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am required to inform the House that the Scottish Government informed the UK Government that they would be unable to recommend legislative consent for the devolved elements of this Bill, and we have tabled amendments in advance of this debate that remove from the Bill provisions that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The content of the Bill does not invoke the legislative consent process in Wales or Northern Ireland.
We have engaged closely with the Scottish Government over many months, during the drafting of the legislation and throughout its passage. Where the Scottish Government have identified concerns, we have sought to remedy them. An example of that is an agreement from operational agencies to discuss a memorandum of understanding with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to provide the Lord Advocate with visibility of criminal conduct in Scotland.
The Scottish Government, however, required further amendments to the Bill in areas which the Government cannot support; namely, placing express limits on the face of the Bill. The Government’s position throughout this process has been based on advice from operational partners to ensure that the Bill is workable in practice and has no unintended consequences for the safety of the public, or a CHIS, and we have had clear advice from operational partners in all parts of the UK that placing limits on the face of the Bill will lead to CHIS testing and increased initiation tests. We remain open to further discussion with the Scottish Government, to ensure that operational agencies continue to have access to the tools required to keep us safe.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: I call the Minister to make a Statement on legislative consent.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: I have just done that.

  
Clause 4: Corresponding provision for Scotland

Amendment 1

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford
1: Clause 4, leave out Clause 4Member’s explanatory statementThis is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, these amendments remove from the Bill the ability to authorise participation in criminal conduct for devolved purposes in Scotland. I have just outlined why we have tabled these amendments: they are in response to the decision of the Scottish Government that they cannot recommend legislative consent. The amendments, therefore, respect the Sewel convention.
Authorisations necessary for the purpose of national security or the economic well-being of the United Kingdom relate to reserved matters, and public authorities will still be able to grant authorisations for these purposes for activity in Scotland. An authorisation necessary for preventing and detecting crime, or preventing disorder, is not in itself reserved. An authorisation granted for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime, or preventing disorder, may, therefore, relate to devolved matters, and it will be these matters to which the Bill will not apply.
In the immediate term, public authorities will need to continue to rely on existing legal bases for such authorisations in Scotland. Were these bases to change—I note the legal challenge currently before the Court of Appeal in relation to MI5’s existing legal basis for this activity—it would be for the Scottish Government to bring forward their own legislation to place this conduct on the clear and consistent statutory basis that the Bill delivers. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, of course, we do not intend to oppose the government amendments —the devolution settlement is to be respected. However, I have some questions, the answer to which at least one of which I can work out from the Minister’s introduction to the amendment. She has had my notes, so I will go through the points that occurred to me.
First, can the Government say anything about their assessment of the impact of what the Minister has just explained? In Committee, she referred to minimising the “immediate operational impact”. It appears to be acknowledged, therefore, that there is some impact. What happens if Scotland legislates differently? The Minister’s letter to noble Lords of 13 January explains one of the issues, which I take to be the major issue, about which the Scottish Government was concerned: an amendment to the limits to conduct that can be authorised; that is, whether specific listed crimes should be excluded. The House has debated that point and I am not seeking to reopen the matter.
In Committee, the Minister reminded us that national security and economic well-being are reserved, not devolved; she has just repeated that. In that case, could there be challenges—it seems to me that there could be—as to whether certain conduct is merely, if that is the right word, a crime? It is not merely a crime, but the House will understand that I am referring to a crime that does not fall within the other categories. The Minister also said that public authorities will continue to rely, in the immediate term, on the existing basis for an authorisation—which, I take it from what she said, is the non-statutory basis.
How, then, does Clause 8 work? That clause says that the Bill extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland, save that Acts of the Scottish Parliament are not amended. The Minister has introduced Amendment 7 —as well as Amendment 8—which amends Schedule 2, the list of consequential amendments. This provides that there may not be a criminal conduct authorisation if
“all or some of the conduct … is likely to take place in Scotland.”
If some of the conduct is in Scotland and the rest in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, does that mean there have to be parallel authorisations, one statutory and one non-statutory? Or do I understand from what the Minister said that the Government in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will proceed on the non-statutory basis so it will be aligned with the authorisation in Scotland? A criminal conduct authorisation prompted by an ordinary crime, if I can call it that, cannot extend across the border but, of course, the crime may well do so.
Finally, the Minister may or may not be able to say whether the issue is wider than the Bill. We will be in Committee next week on the Counter-Terrorism and  Sentencing Bill and I gather from government amendments that there is an issue there—but is it an even wider issue on legislation? I hope the Minister can help with my questions, which I have tabled in order to understand how the Bill will operate in this circumstance.

Lord Rosser: I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of these government amendments and for her letter of 13 January explaining the position in the light of the confirmation from the Scottish Government that they are unable to recommend consent for devolved provisions within the Bill. We understand why the Government have brought forward these amendments today and accept the need for them. Our key concern is whether the situation that has now been reached will have any adverse impact at all on national security and economic well-being, UK-wide, and it would be helpful if the Government could confirm, as I think the Minister has sought to indicate, that there will be no such adverse impact.
The letter from the Minister of 13 January states that the Scottish Government
“require further amendment to the Bill in relation to limits to the conduct which can be authorised under the Bill.”
As this House has now added those limits to the Bill, are the Government minded to change their stance on that issue and accept the amendment concerned?
Finally—I appreciate that this is a matter to which the Minister has also made reference—will the Government say what the impact will be, first in Scotland, to which she referred, and also in the UK as a whole, if the present legal basis for authorising criminal conduct changes, based on the outcome of the current, ongoing court case?

Baroness Williams of Trafford: I thank both noble Lords for raising those points. On the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on what happens if the law changes in relation to the court case, clearly the court case is ongoing, we await the findings of it and, in a sense pre-empting the court case, the Government have seen fit to put on to a statutory footing that which was never on a statutory footing. So I hope that, without in any way pre-empting the court case, this will satisfy the courts.
Obviously, the Government are disappointed that we are having to bring forward these amendments. We made it clear that a UK Bill was and remains our preference, and we have worked hard to try to accommodate that. But we have to ensure the workability of the Bill as our primary consideration, and on those grounds we could not provide the amendment necessary to ensure the support of the Scottish Government. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about limits, we will not accept any change to what we have put forward because it would completely undermine the operational capabilities that the Bill provides for. I have been through the arguments about the safeguards on human rights that are provided in the Bill and, of course, the Children Act when it comes to children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the Government’s assessment of impact. She will appreciate that we do not want to provide sensitive  operational detail, but operational partners are considering how to manage any impact of the decision of the Scottish Government. In the immediate term, public authorities will need to consider any existing legal basis for an authorisation, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right to acknowledge that these organisations will not be able to rely on the clear statutory basis provided by the Bill. If there is operational or legal risk in the future, it will be for the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation for devolved activity. It will be in their gift to decide on the safeguards attached to that legislation, and I would hope and expect them to be driven by the expert advice of operational partners, as we have been.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also asked—rightly so—about cross-border operations. Operational partners will continue to work closely with their counterparts in Scotland, including Police Scotland, where operations take place across the border, to ensure that they remain able to prevent crime and harm to the public in all parts of the UK. Finally, she asked whether the issue was wider than the Bill. Clearly, if there are any legislative consent issues to which Scotland, or indeed Wales, have to consent, these will be considered on a legislation-by-legislation basis, so it is very difficult for me to answer in any theoretical way, but that is the process that goes on for LCMs, as we call them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me whether there would be any adverse impact on national security and economic well-being more broadly. I answered no in my first speech and I will confirm that, because they are, of course, reserved matters.
Amendment 1 agreed.

  
Clause 5: Oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner

Amendments 2 to 4

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford
2: Clause 5, page 7, line 36, leave out “or (g)”Member’s explanatory statementThis is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
3: Clause 5, page 7, line 39, leave out from beginning of line 39 to “(criminal conduct authorisations)” in line 40Member’s explanatory statementThis is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
4: Clause 5, page 8, line 4, leave out from “2000” to “(criminal conduct authorisations)” in line 5Member’s explanatory statementThis is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to  Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Amendments 2 to 4 agreed.

  
Clause 8: Extent and short title

Amendment 5

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford
5: Clause 8, page 8, line 25, leave out subsection (3)Member’s explanatory statementThis is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Amendment 5 agreed.

  
Schedule 1: Corresponding amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000

Amendment 6

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford
6: Schedule 1, leave out Schedule 1Member’s explanatory statementThis is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Amendment 6 agreed.

  
Schedule 2: Consequential amendments

Amendments 7 and 8

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford
7: Schedule 2, page 13, line 11, at end insert—“(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(5) No person may grant or renew a section 29B(5)(b) authorisation if it appears to the person that all or some of the conduct authorised by the section 29B(5)(b) authorisation is likely to take place in Scotland.(6) But subsection (5) does not apply if the grant or renewal of the section 29B(5)(b) authorisation is for a purpose relating to a reserved matter (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998).(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6),“a section 29B(5)(b) authorisation” means an authorisation under section 29B in so far as it is granted or, as the case may be, renewed on the grounds that it is necessary on grounds falling within section 29B(5)(b).””Member’s explanatory statementThis is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
8: Schedule 2, page 14, line 27, leave out paragraph (b)  Member’s explanatory statementThis is one of 8 drafting amendments needed because at Report stage substantive amendments were made to RIPA which were not replicated for RIP(S)A in relation to activity devolved to Scotland. These amendments make the Bill’s approach consistent by removing all provision relating to activity devolved to Scotland from the Bill.
Amendments 7 and 8 agreed.

Motion

Baroness Williams of Trafford: Moved by Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Bill do now pass.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Amendment to the Motion

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: Moved by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
“Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to allow the bill to pass because the bill (1) grants blanket prior legal immunity for otherwise criminal conduct without sufficient safeguards or oversight, (2) provides no system of prior judicial authorisation, (3) does not recover profits obtained under a Criminal Conduct Authorisation which could include proceeds from the sale of drugs, weapons, human trafficking and slavery, (4) fails to provide compensation to victims of crimes authorised under the bill, and (5) represents a significant expansion of undercover policing despite, and without regard to, the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry.”

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, noble Lords can imagine that there is a lot of legislation going through this House that I oppose. In the past, I have exercised restraint and have not been disruptive with procedural Motions, but there are times when we all need to make a stand, and this Bill, for me, is one of those situations. It is a terrible piece of legislation and I cannot be complicit in it, nor in future acts of state oppression that will be the result of our passing it, and I will, therefore, divide the House.
Noble Lords have spent many days trying to improve the Bill, and we have made a few positive steps, but even if the other place does not remove most of those amendments, the Bill is still so fundamentally flawed that it should not be allowed to pass. Scotland has had the sense to refuse the Bill and I wish that we would do the same. I was subject to police surveillance for more than a decade. I did not know about it, it did not affect me, and even when I found out, it really did not affect me very much—but others in your Lordships’ House were subject to similar but much worse surveillance, and many will not even know whether they were observed and under surveillance or not. The Bill does nothing to improve that situation; in fact, it will make things worse by granting total legal immunity to undercover officers, spies and informants.
There is also the fact that the Bill has been brought forward while the Undercover Policing Inquiry is still going on. Not far from here, that inquiry is hearing evidence about police infiltration of peaceful campaign  groups and unions, and undercover officers forming sexual relationships with women. The Bill learns no lessons from that inquiry and does nothing to support the victims. It actually grants much broader legal immunity to the wrongdoers.
I am also concerned that I did not get a proper answer to my repeated questions about the proceeds of crimes authorised under the Bill. My conclusion is that the police will be able to authorise people to profit from criminal activities, and that there is no way for the state to recover those profits. I hope there will not be too many miscarriages of justice and abuses of power before we revisit and repeal this legislation. With all that in mind, I am sad that I am in a minority in opposing the Bill, but I cannot in conscience abstain and accept its passage. I beg to move.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich: My Lords, as one of the many Cross-Benchers who has applied themselves to this Bill, I record my thanks to the Minister for her explanations and for the discussions with her, which I have enjoyed—no 48-hour weeks for her—and James Brokenshire, who continues to have all our good wishes; to the Bill team; to the police and MI5; to IPCO, whose monitoring function is so vital; and to the NGOs and individuals who campaign on these issues and do their best to keep us all honest. I am particularly grateful to those who brought the Third Direction case. There are issues of great public concern which simply do not come to the attention of Parliament without the spur of litigation, and this is one of them. I have also appreciated not only the speeches of other noble Lords but my informal dialogue with them, intensive at times, which in my experience can be achieved just as easily, if not quite so pleasurably, in a virtual House as in a physical one.
This Bill was not widely consulted on and went from Committee stage to Third Reading in the other place during a single day. It needed the time we were able to give it, and I believe that after seven days of debate we have achieved significant improvement and clarification. I thank the Minister in particular for working with me on real-time notification. I hope we can achieve a satisfactory result on the other excellent amendments that we have passed, including those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which improve notification and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on juvenile CHIS, while still enabling the Bill to be enacted by the start of the Court of Appeal hearing on 28 January, which I know is the Government’s ambition.
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and understand her regrets, which are underlined by the withholding of consent by the Scottish Government, but I will not be voting for her amendment to the Motion. For all its difficult and controversial features, the Bill is a clear improvement on the opaque and poorly safeguarded arrangements that preceded it, and it has my support.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords, I have bled your Lordships’ ears over this Bill long enough, so I can be short. I thank the Minister for her patience and fortitude but my profound fears about this legislation  will continue for a very long time, until it is amended or repealed. My concerns are about the signal that it sends but, even more, about the serious human rights abuses that it will herald. It is, quite simply, the most constitutionally dangerous legislation that I have seen presented in this country in my working life.
I am rather ashamed not to have been able to persuade more of your Lordships of the profound dangers of allowing the Executive to grant advance immunity for criminal actions to a whole raft of their agents—not just the brave security services or the hard-pressed police but many other government agencies and quangos, and the members of our communities who inform for or work for them, including even children. It will not even be with prior judicial warrant. This legislation does not put current arrangements on a statutory footing, so it does not merely respond to the litigation mentioned by the previous speaker. As for that litigation, there may be a lesson here for those of us who at times have dabbled in test-case legislation: to be careful what we wish for when provoking the might of the state in this fashion.
Just as our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic are beginning to rebuild their own bedrock of the rule of law, it will take a little longer in our own jurisdiction. A lot is said of patriotism these days. My patriotism is not the love of a flag but, in a nutshell, a love of the NHS and the rule of law. This Bill abrogates the vital principle of equality before the law, which I think all people well understand. It is a very sad day for me. For the moment, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I can only bear witness for the record—but that I must do. I cannot in good conscience support the Bill being passed off as law.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, always expresses herself firmly and persuasively. That said, I am afraid I could not agree with her less about this legislation. I support the passage of the Bill and want to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has been both consultative and a very good listener. She has also shown that she is prepared to move on important issues. Far from what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, the Bill puts CHIS on a solid, statutory footing.
It has improved the way in which CHIS are to be dealt with by creating a clear process, all of which is legally enforceable and accountable. The code of practice has been mentioned less frequently in our debates than it deserved. It is absolutely required reading for all who are involved, or perhaps even interested, in how CHIS are handled in this country. One thing to be emphasised about the code of practice is that because it is a code rather than an Act of Parliament, although it has the force of law, it is a living instrument which can be changed as needs must.
The Bill will make a beneficial difference for the authorities, for the CHIS themselves and for public safety. With the changes that have been made, which have been difficult and creative at times, I commend it to the House.

Lord Hendy: My Lords, it is my particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, although it is a particular discomfort to me to disagree with him  on this occasion. The Bill proposes that the state should have the power to grant immunity for crimes committed in the future by agents on its behalf. I believe that the grant of such immunity is contrary to the rule of law, which prescribes that all are bound equally to observe the law, not least the criminal law. The fact that such immunity will derive from legislation if the Bill becomes law does not alter my belief.
Giving the state the power to exempt prospectively its agents from criminal law is the antithesis of this fundamental principle. A decision to prosecute or not should be granted only retrospectively, when all the facts and circumstances of the conduct at issue are known, including the nature of any authorisation and, above all, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. The CPS makes such decisions all the time; that is compatible with the rule of law and equality before the law. This arrangement, as far as is known, has worked perfectly satisfactorily for the last 200 years. Instead, the Bill overturns this status quo, challenges the rule of law and gives the state unparalleled powers. I regret that on this occasion I cannot follow the advice of my noble friends on my party’s Front Bench and, as a matter of conscience, I am obliged to vote against the Bill.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for all the consultation she has gone through, and the Government for their flexibility in adjusting the Bill to the stage it has reached. I am also always pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and find that I think along the same lines as him, as I did when I was the Government’s Security Minister and he was outside the box, looking in to make sure that we behaved.
I am speaking against the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, albeit that she put it eloquently. We should be proud of the Bill. Putting our covert human intelligence agents’ behaviour on a statutory basis is to be praised. As I have said, agents save lives. In working under cover, CHIS need to be trusted by those on whom they are reporting. Put simply, if they are to be believed to be a gang member, they need to act like one. If they do not, it is no exaggeration to say that they could be killed. Their handlers must be able to authorise them to break the law in certain circumstances and subject to specific safeguards. This has been strengthened in our debates and we should be proud of that. The ISC believes that there is a need for such authorisations. It also supports the Government’s decision not to place limits on criminal conduct in the Bill itself for the reasons that were debated.
I have thought long and hard about the use of children and I have to say that, initially, I was very concerned about it. As an aside, I do not consider 16 to 18 year-olds children, but that is a different issue. As regards the use of those aged below 16, I now believe that they should be used in exceptional circumstances, and appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that that can be done to maximum gain and with minimum risk.
In summary, as I say, we should be proud that we have put this issue on a statutory basis. The Bill is a necessary and useful piece of legislation.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in nearly 30 years in your Lordships’ House, I have never seen a piece of legislation that has made me more uneasy than this Bill. To me it is counterintuitive to give anyone the power to pre-empt the application of the criminal law .
I of course support the need to do all that is necessary to protect our national security and to detect and prevent serious crime, but it should have been possible to find other means. To choose this moment to extend in legislation the legality of law-breaking seems most unwise. This, after all, is a time when Russia is without compunction using, both at home and abroad, deadly poisons to eliminate its enemies. When it succeeds, it denies it. When it fails, its leader blithely explains that when it wants to kill, it succeeds.
I give one simple and deliberately irrelevant example. If a burglar is killed by a householder protecting himself or his family, it is unlikely that a jury will convict him of murder or even manslaughter. That does not mean, however, that we should legislate to give ex-ante immunity to householders who kill burglars.
I have one more word on journalists. I tried to persuade your Lordships to require judicial authorisation for any requirement to force journalists to reveal their sources in cases covered by the Bill. The amendment was defeated by seven votes but I was comforted by the fact that three former Cabinet Secretaries voted for it.
The Bill will now pass, and I shall vote for it, but let us agree, at least informally, that its implementation should be monitored with rigour. All societies must defend their security but open societies must take especial care of how they do so. Yesterday, President Biden told the American people that
“we’ll lead not merely by the example of our power but the power of our example.”

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is absolutely right to bring forward her amendment to the Motion. I might want to criticise the details, which I do not intend to do, but she is right to do so. In fact, it would have been inconsistent with her rigid approach to the Bill for her not to do so. So, to that extent, I support her right to table the amendment; there is no question whatever about that. It gives me an opportunity to further vote for the Bill because I will not support the amendment to the Motion.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, just made a point about the open society. This is a problem and there is a disquiet here. As an open society, we need to protect our openness. However, when that openness is the very thing used to undermine and smash our open society, we have to say no. We have to have a process that defends our open society and is consistent with the rule of law. The Bill is perfect for that. I have no doubt that in future the Bill will be amended, but the language that has been used about it is extravagant and misleading.
I see that on Twitter it is described as the “Spy Cops Bill”. It has nothing to do with spy cops. It is completely different and that can be misleading. If I was a CHIS in Scotland, I would be a bit concerned at the moment about becoming a whistleblower because I am not sure whether the Scottish Government are fully behind the process.
Perhaps I may briefly also express thanks. I have not been involved in the detail but I took up the Minister’s opportunity for a discussion with the Bill team and some of the advisers, which I found useful. Indeed, as a result, they published more information. The case studies, which I used extensively on Report, should have been deployed even more. There has been a communication issue regarding the Bill, which I find a fault because the Government have not defended and promoted some of its practical aspects as much as they could have.
The Bill protects covert human intelligence sources. It makes sure that they are not put at risk by being tested by the criminal gangs they may have been sucked into involuntarily, as mentioned in some of the examples used in the case studies. It is not the case that all people knowingly go down that route; they get sucked in by their employers. As a non-expert in this area, I found the newly published guidance incredibly helpful.
My final point is on the pejorative language used, such as when quangos are dismissed as not important. Most of the quangos listed in the Bill are non-ministerial government departments and should not be dismissed by saying, “Oh, it doesn’t matter”. I find that kind of language unacceptable among parliamentarians because it deliberately seeks to mislead the public regarding what the Bill is about. It should stop.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I have a lot of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and we support the spirit of her amendment to the Motion to the extent that we oppose the granting of legal immunity. We believe that the Bill undermines the rule of law—that is, the principle whereby all members of a society are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. As a result of the Bill, that is called into question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, have said.
Where a police officer or member of the security services tasks a covert human intelligence source to commit an act defined in law as a crime, the person tasked will no longer be subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. An existing system that has worked effectively for decades, whereby informants and agents are tasked to commit crime and the decision, almost without exception, not to prosecute is taken by the relevant prosecuting authority, after considering all the facts, will be swept aside.
It is to be replaced with what we consider an unsafe and undesirable power, vested in the hands of the police, the security services and numerous other public authorities, to grant legal immunity with no prior judicial authority. The main issue is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, says in her amendment to the Motion, that there are insufficient safeguards or oversight, although this is arguably true. It is the fact that immunity can be granted at all, making the illegal legal. That is the fundamental issue for us on these Benches. I expect the legality of this aspect of the Bill to be challenged in the courts. That said, the House fully debated this aspect of the Bill, and without the support of the Labour Party leadership, we on these Benches were unable to remove it.
Contrary to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, this House has clarified the existing position and improved the Bill, to ensure that innocent victims of crimes committed by those instructed to do so by state agents can seek compensation. Contrary to her amendment to the Motion, undercover policing is not being expanded by the Bill, although the Bill has shone more light on this aspect of policing. The number of public authorities that can deploy covert human intelligence sources has been reduced by the Bill. The directed criminal activity of those informants and agents has been placed on a statutory footing, rather than the Bill enabling it to increase.
From the start, we recognised the need to place the tasking of covert human intelligence sources to commit crime on a statutory basis, which this Bill does. We have improved the Bill in some important respects—the safeguards for children and vulnerable adults, for example, despite our fundamental misgivings over immunity. Therefore, with regret, we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment to the Motion.
I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their work on the Bill; our Labour colleagues and their staff for their assistance and co-operation on those aspects that we were able to agree on; and those on the Cross Benches who have liaised with us. I also thank my staff and colleagues for their help with what has been a very difficult Bill for me, personally, because of my previous professional experience of this difficult area of policing and because of my knowledge of the very real opportunities that the Bill presents for corruption and malpractice. The amendments that this House has introduced are the very minimum required and we will resist any attempt to remove any of them.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, we do not support the amendment to the Motion. This unelected House does not vote down Bills. Our role is that of a revising Chamber. Through making amendments to Bills, we invite the House of Commons to reconsider its position on specific aspects of legislation. That is what we have done with this Bill.
We have debated amendments to the Bill. Some have been agreed by this House, and some have not had its support. From our point of view, we have not won the support of this House for everything we wanted, but important amendments have been agreed and we want the Bill with those amendments to go back to the House of Commons for consideration. This amendment to the Motion, if carried, would thwart that objective and accordingly we shall vote against it.
This House has made important changes to the Bill. I should like to take this opportunity, along with my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to thank the Minister and her ministerial colleagues, the Bill team, many other Members of this House and various security agencies and organisations for their willingness to meet us to discuss aspects of the Bill. Those meetings have been most helpful. Finally, we place on record our appreciation of the invaluable and immense support we have received from our own staff on this Bill, particularly Grace Wright.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment to the Motion. I join other noble Lords in thanking the police, MI5 and other operational partners who will now, I hope, have a clear statutory framework and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says, the accompanying code of practice, which will also have the full force of law in which to operate.
I hope that the Government have put forward their case, in spite of some of the unique challenges relating to the sensitivity of this tactic and that noble Lords are reassured that I have been listening and will continue to listen to the strength of views that have been put forward on certain issues. I am happy to discuss any issue further and urge noble Lords to take that course of action if they have any remaining concerns, rather than support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which would cause the Bill to fall.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford talked about the implementation being monitored with rigour and I totally agree. Any legislation brought before Parliament must have that rigorous monitoring behind it. Every time the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has spoken on the Bill, I felt like saying, “I refer noble Lords to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker”. He talked about the case studies which were much asked for at the beginning of the debates on the Bill and, once forthcoming, as the noble Lord said, almost forgotten about.
It is also worth considering that, without the power or activity that the Bill provides for, the NCA would have been unable to take almost 60 firearms off the street in 2018 alone and the Metropolitan Police would have been unable to seize more than 400 kilograms of class A drugs between November 2018 and November 2019. MI5 and CT policing would also have been impacted in their ability to thwart some 27 terror attacks since March 2017. I do not think that any noble Lord would want to prevent this criminality being stopped in future, which is what the amendment would do.
I acknowledge the important principles behind much of our debate on the Bill—Parliament needs to reassure itself that there is suitable oversight in place, and we have really interrogated that. While strong and differing opinions have been expressed on how to legislate for this activity, I pay tribute to the quality of the debate, despite fundamental differences, and the passionate and articulate way in which noble Lords have relayed their views.
I hope that, during the course of the debates, I have demonstrated the significant safeguards that exist and some of the additional ones that, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others have said, have now been inserted. Highly trained and experienced authorising officers must assess that an authorisation is necessary and proportionate. That authorisation must be compliant with the Human Rights Act, including the right to life and the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The authorisation is then overseen by the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who reports his findings in his annual report and, thanks to amendments supported by noble Lords, will now consider each and  every authorisation within seven days of it being granted. The IPT then offers an entirely independent judicial mechanism for anyone who is concerned that they have been subjected to improper action by any user of an investigatory power.
I hope that the Division that I know the noble Baroness is going to call will not succeed, and I hope that the Bill will now go back to the other place so that it can consider the amendments that noble Lords supported on Report. The Government are committed to providing any additional reassurance to command the support of Parliament and, of course, to keep the public and CHIS safe.
I will conclude there because I realise that we have combined speeches from the debate on the amendment with the final concluding remarks, but I join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in thanking the Opposition Front Benches, everyone who has contributed to these debates and all the staff who support us. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, but I suspect that that is not about to happen.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I also thank the eight or nine Peers I passed as I came into the House, all of whom gave me the benefit of their views on this Bill and my amendment—some were positive.
It seemed to me that this Bill was the worst I had ever seen in your Lordships’ House until yesterday, when we had the overseas operations Bill, which is even worse. Luckily, there appears to be more opposition to that; I look forward to joining in. I have been in your Lordships’ House for seven and a half years, and, to the best of my recollection—which is not always the best—I have only ever pressed one vote to a Division. Today’s will be the second. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 29, Noes 440.

Division conducted remotely on Baroness Jones’s amendment to the Motion.
Baroness Jones’s amendment disagreed.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Arrangement of Business
 - Announcement

Baroness Henig: I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding. It is not possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. Participants who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. In putting the question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
 - Report

Amendment 1

Lord Tunnicliffe: Moved by Lord Tunnicliffe
1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—“General dutyThe Secretary of State must exercise his or her functions under this Part in accordance with the general duty under section 1 of the Transport Act 2000.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 1
“would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.”
Amendment 10 is complementary to this amendment.
Amendment 2 would ensure that
“the Secretary of State must, before making a direction requiring a person to progress an airspace change, consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy and is reasonably practicable to comply with.”
Amendment 5 would ensure that, before making direction requiring a person to co-operate in an air- space change, the Secretary of State must consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that it is reasonably practical for the recipient of the direction to comply with it.
Amendment 8 would align the test for the variation of the direction with that applicable to making a direction. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any direction to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal or variations or revocations of such direction made under this part. Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy and related reports.
Amendment 13 concerns the report on general aviation. General aviation—this was the case in my day, which is now some decades ago, but I think it still persists—particularly light general aviation, is essentially where all our airline pilots are initially trained; that is how they come into the profession and so on. It is important that it is properly facilitated with respect to airspace changes and development. Fortunately, from conversations with the Minister, I believe that she shares that view, and I hope that, in her response, she will set out the Government’s support for general aviation and how its interests will be taken account of in the developing airspace debate. Hopefully, this will leave general aviation properly provided for and, almost as important, feeling that it has been properly consulted in the development.
In summary, this group of amendments seeks to clarify the role of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a role that is related to the CAA in various processes. It is not entirely clear who is in charge. The Bill as written gives the Secretary of State and the CAA the powers to achieve airspace change, but it is not clear who is actually responsible for getting it done. I would like to hear from the Minister that it is clear that the achievement of improvements and a new airspace capability is down to the Secretary of State, answerable to Parliament, and that his relationship with the CAA may be a partnership but he is the person in the partnership who is held accountable for execution and success.
The rest of the amendments are about requiring appropriate relationships between the parties and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I support the Bill, but I must use this opportunity to say that it is a bit of a mess. That is not surprising, because it has such a long history: the Bill itself is the result of attempts over several years to get legislation of this nature, and of course we had the Committee stage over a year ago.
Since then, there has been a dramatic reversal in the fortunes of the aviation industry—one that we would never have foreseen at the time when we spoke about this last. The impact of coronavirus has undermined all branches of aviation. In addition, of course, since we last spoke we have left the transition period following Brexit, but we are still at the point where we have to adhere to international norms and regulations.
We certainly support the amendments. They are designed to ensure that, when aviation modernisation takes place, the change comes in a realistic and careful  manner, and that where the overall cost for an airport is concerned, it receives appropriate compensation if there is a detriment to it. The Airport Operators Association has suggested that the Government need to stimulate the modernisation process by funding the first stage of modernisation, and I would be interested in hearing what the Minister thinks of that proposal. The association also remains concerned about the breadth of the powers that this Bill would give the Government in order to release controlled airspace, to ensure that controlled airspace is released by airports.
There is a clear tension here between the needs of general aviation—I fully appreciate that general aviation itself is not a neat, simple category; there are many different strands to it—and commercial aviation, which is worth many billions of pounds to our economy. That is something that concerns airport operators; they are worried about the lack of limit to the Government’s powers. I shall be listening to the Minister’s response and hoping that she will reassure us about the manner in which the Government will use those powers.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for tabling these amendments. I hope to set out the Government’s rationale for why we believe they are not necessary. I do not expect to speak at length on all groups, but for this group specifically it is important to put on record some commitments that the Government are willing to make and the rationale for them. I will return to the financial concerns of airports, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in the next group.
Amendments 1 and 10 seek to require the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority to act in accordance with the general duty set out in Sections 1 and 2 of the Transport Act 2000 respectively. These duties apply only to the provision of air traffic services and set out various matters to be considered in the exercise of the relevant functions. This includes the words
“to secure that licence holders will not find it unduly difficult to finance activities authorised by their licences”,
which in effect refers solely to NATS (En Route) plc, or NERL, as the UK’s only licence holder. I understand that NERL would like to ensure that the specific duty on the Secretary of State and the CAA is considered when directing NERL with an airspace change proposal, or ACP. It is already a requirement for the Secretary of State and the CAA to consider any licence conditions relating to NERL’s role in airspace modernisation through the lens of its statutory duties under the Transport Act 2000. As with any proposed recipient of a direction, if the licence holder has financial concerns in progressing an ACP then we expect that the CAA’s oversight team will seek to assist in finding potential solutions, such as sharing costs or expertise with other airport operators or assisting the proposed recipient in applying for funding from other sources.
The noble Lord’s amendment would extend the duties of the CAA and the Secretary of State in the Transport Act 2000 to cover other sponsors of airspace change; for example, airports. Relevant duties already apply to air navigation functions which the Secretary of State directs the CAA to carry out. Section 66 of  the Transport Act 2000 enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the CAA regarding air navigation, and Section 70 sets out the CAA’s general duty in relation to its air navigation functions.
The amendment would be likely to cause a legislative conflict because, when determining whether to make directions using the powers in the Bill, the Secretary of State will consider advice from the CAA. This advice will take into account how critical the airspace change in question is in contributing to overall airspace modernisation, and the ability of the proposed recipient to progress the change, including the proposed recipient’s financial and other resources.
I turn to Amendments 2, 5, 8 and 9. The purpose of Amendments 2 and 5 is to require the Secretary of State to have regard to representations made by any person involved in airspace change before issuing a direction in order to be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA airspace strategy and that it is reasonably practicable to comply with. Amendments 8 and 9 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the same considerations applied if the Secretary of State varied a direction and that the reasons for the variation were published. I reassure noble Lords that appropriate conditions are already written into the Bill.
Clause 2(3) states that, before giving a direction, the Secretary of State must consult its proposed recipient. Clause 2(4) states that the Secretary of State may give a direction only if he or she is of the view that it
“will assist in the delivery of the CAA’s airspace strategy.”
Clause 3(2) states that the Secretary of State must consult both the proposed recipient of the direction and
“the person with whom co-operation would be directed.”
On Amendments 8 and 9, Clause 4 requires that directions, and any notice of variation or revocation, given by the Secretary of State under Clauses 2 and 3 are given in writing and are published. As with directions given under Clauses 2 or 3, any variation of a direction must assist in the delivery of the airspace strategy. We also expect the Secretary of State to consider how critical the ACP is and the ability of the sponsor to progress it. Before varying a direction, prior consultation with the relevant parties would be required. The same factors considered when giving a direction would be considered before varying or revoking a direction.
The requirement to consult before giving or varying a direction would inevitably require the Secretary of State to provide reasons for giving or varying a direction and to take advice from the CAA to ensure that the direction or its variation is required to assist in the delivery of the CAA’s strategy. We would expect the reasons for the direction, or variation or revocation, to be given and published alongside the direction or notice of variation or revocation, rather than in the direction or notice of variation itself, although the Bill is not prescriptive on that point.
In the unlikely event that a direction or variation were given where it was not reasonably practicable for the sponsor to carry it out, the sponsor would be able to use its right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, under Schedule 1, if the decision was wrong on one or more of the following grounds; namely, if it was based on an error of fact or was wrong in law, or an error was made in the exercise of a discretion.
Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy. It would also require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a Statement setting out progress towards the implementation of the strategy within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and to lay further reports covering every subsequent 12-month period within six months of those periods ending.
The Civil Aviation Authority (Air Navigation) Directions 2017, issued to the CAA under Section 66(1) of the Transport Act 2000, directs the CAA to
“prepare and maintain a co-ordinated strategy and plan for the use of UK airspace for air navigation up to 2040, including for the modernisation of the use of such airspace.”
This places responsibility on the CAA for preparing the strategy, in consultation with the Secretary of State, and to report annually on the delivery of that strategy, which the CAA does through its airspace modernisation strategy—AMS. However, although the CAA and the DfT, as co-sponsors, are jointly responsible for the programme and for setting out the framework within which modernisation happens, airspace modernisation will ultimately be delivered by aviation stakeholders. Therefore, the legislation makes it clear that the CAA is required by the Secretary of State to prepare and maintain an airspace strategy and publish an annual report on it, and that the Secretary of State will hold the CAA accountable for this.
With regard to the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a Statement on the CAA’s progress against the strategy, as I mentioned previously, the CAA is already required to publish an annual report on progress against the AMS through the directions made by the Transport Secretary under the air navigation directions 2017. The latest report was published on 22 December 2020. It is worth noting that an amendment of this nature would widen the scope of the Bill, which provides the Secretary of State with specific powers with regard to airspace change proposals, not responsibility for the AMS as a whole, which is covered by Section 66 of the Transport Act 2000.
Finally, Amendment 13, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of Parts 1 and 2 on the general aviation—GA—sector. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his constructive engagement on this issue since Committee; his insight and experience have been most welcome.
GA is a key part of the aviation sector and is an important source of pilots, engineers and technicians, who, in turn, contribute to the success of commercial aviation, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The Government support GA, and we will continue to ensure that its needs are not overlooked at both local and national level when it comes to airspace modernisation.
However, I do not believe that it would benefit the AMS to place a reporting burden on the Secretary of State within 12 months of the Bill becoming an Act, for two reasons. First, Part 1 provides the Secretary of State with powers of direction relating to ACPs. Initially, we intend to use the powers in the Bill only on ACPs that are part of the master plan which is being developed  by the Airspace Change Organising Group—ACOG—and formally accepted into the AMS. However, due to the impacts of Covid-19 on the modernisation programme —notably, the financial impacts on industry—the next iteration of the master plan will now not be delivered until later in 2021. That means it is very unlikely that within the 12-month period laid out in Amendment 13 a sponsor would have been directed to undertake an airspace change. If the powers in Part 1 are not used in this timeframe, there will be no impact on GA to be assessed and reported.
Secondly, Part 2 relates to NERL’s licence. NERL is responsible for upper airspace, where GA aircraft, other than business jets, do not routinely fly. An impact assessment, relating to Part 2, of the effects on GA would be very limited in content. The Secretary of State is aware that ACPs can have both positive and negative effects on stakeholders, including the GA community. If an individual ACP were directed, the impacts on GA would be set out in the CAP1616 process and GA bodies would be consulted if there were impacts.
I will revisit some of the things that the Government already do to ensure that the GA sector is fully represented at every level of the airspace modernisation governance structure. First, the Government are grateful to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation for sharing the findings of the inquiry into UK lower airspace led by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope. The Government will continue to consider these recommendations during future updates to the AMS.
Secondly, CAP1711b, the governance annexe of the AMS, lists all the organisations that must be engaged in airspace modernisation. For example, ACOG is required to demonstrate how it has engaged with GA bodies such as the General and Business Aviation Strategic Forum in order for the master plan to be accepted by the CAA. To further strengthen ACOG, two GA representatives now sit on its steering committee.
Additionally, and following the Kirkhope inquiry, the Secretary of State has amended the air navigation directions to require the CAA to undertake a review, in consultation with airspace users, of airspace classification. The review will identify volumes of controlled airspace where the classification could be amended to better reflect the needs of all airspace users. The Secretary of State has also directed the CAA to prioritise ACPs from GA aerodromes relating to global navigation satellite systems—GNSS—approaches.
As demonstrated, we take the contribution of GA very seriously. As a sign of this, and after discussions with the Secretary of State, I can commit to the following further actions. First, we will require that ACOG includes a general assessment of the potential impact on the GA sector in all future iterations of the master plan. The CAA will enshrine this requirement in its guidance to ACOG on what the master plan must contain from a regulatory perspective. Secondly, we will ensure that future iterations of the master plan will be drawn to the attention of both Houses when they are published by placing a copy in the Libraries  of both Houses. We will also direct the CAA to include a specific chapter on GA in its annual progress report on the AMS. This will be published, and a copy placed in the Libraries of both Houses accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement. Additionally, we will require the CAA to provide a report on the impact of Part 1 of the Bill on GA, under Sections 16 and 17 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
These actions that I am committing to achieve the same objective as this amendment. I hope that, based on these reassurances and the commitments I have made, the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Henig: There are no questions for the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In light of the assurances she has given us, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 1 and send this Bill to the other end, where they will no doubt consider her response in great depth. I shall also not be moving the rest of the amendments in my name in this group.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.

  
Clause 2: Direction to progress airspace change proposal
  

Amendment 2 not moved.

Baroness Henig: We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 3

Lord Tunnicliffe: Moved by Lord Tunnicliffe
3: Clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—“( ) If a direction given to a person under subsection (1) is predominantly or wholly to enable the air change proposals of a third party to be completed as part of the masterplan for airspace modernisation and not an airspace change proposal of the person itself and would lead to adverse financial impacts for that person, the Secretary of State may compensate that person and may recover the cost of compensation wholly or in part from the third party.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.

Lord Tunnicliffe: I move Amendment 3 and I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 3 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts. Amendment 4 would empower the Secretary of State to provide that a person who is directed to progress an airspace change is fairly compensated for doing so, and that the  compensation can be recovered from another person involved in airspace change where appropriate. Amendment 6 would empower the Secretary of State to require a person involved in airspace change to compensate another person who had been directed to progress an airspace change. Amendment 7 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.
One of the problems of getting organisations to co-operate is that some parties are unwilling to do so and they will use the financial impact on them as their excuse, particularly if one party is required to co-ordinate the activity and invest considerable work but is not likely to gain financially from the changes it is developing. Then it will be reluctant to move. Efforts to improve airflow planning over south-east England have been going on for at least a decade. It is important that, if it is a matter of financial limitations, the Bill allows appropriate mechanisms for money to flow between parties and perhaps from government.
This is important between big players, such as the airports and NATS. It is also important in the case of small airports or airfields on the periphery of the controlled airspace, where small changes may have significant adverse effects on them and they are not equipped—particularly financially—to mount a proper representation to have their voices heard without some recognition of the financial burden on them. Clearly, the movement of monies between the parties as allowed for in this group of amendments may not be necessary, but since we are creating a Bill to address all eventualities in the development of modern airspace it is important at this stage to make sure that there are facilities for money to move about and, in extremis, for government perhaps to finance parts of that development. I beg to move.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, our airspace modernisation is a complex but necessary process. It is necessary in the modern world because it enables environmental gains in an industry increasingly under fire for its emissions and where the technological solutions are much more long term than they are in the case of, for example, road vehicles. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has just pointed out, one person’s gain is often another person’s loss. These are useful amendments because there is a real fear of a potential conflict between airports as the modernisation process goes forward.
In Committee, I mentioned that Stansted and Luton airports, for example, are very close geographically. It is not impossible to imagine that what would help Stansted might deprive Luton; for example, a potential airspace route that would cost it money in terms of potential for new services. Since the Committee stage, airports have found themselves in great financial difficulty because of travel restrictions. These amendments are therefore designed to ensure what I assume is an even-handed approach from the Secretary of State down through the CAA and the Airspace Change Organising Group.
The Airport Operators Association remains concerned about the funding of this issue—I raised that in the last group and was delighted to hear that the Minister has agreed to deal with it in her response here. When this matter was raised previously by the Airport Operators Association, the Aviation Minister suggested three  sources of funding in a situation where one airport was going to win at the expense of another. The first suggestion was that alternative sponsors might pay. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly what is intended with that proposal.
The second suggestion from the Aviation Minister was that funding might come from the £10-million airspace modernisation fund. That sounds fine but it is actually a relatively small sum so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is a fixed sum or extra funding would potentially be available.
Thirdly, there was a suggestion of government funding on a case-by-case basis. If the Government have any further thoughts on this, it would be really good to hear them at this stage. I hope that the Minister can put the Government’s intentions on record today to clarify these issues.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is to enable compensation for the recipient of a direction if the airspace change is predominantly or wholly for the benefit of a third party and if issuing a direction would lead to adverse financial impacts. Amendments 3 and 7 would also allow the Secretary of State to recover the cost of the compensation from the third party.
It is important for me to be clear up front that, while we recognise the severe impact that Covid-19 is having on the aviation sector, the “user pays” policy principle is an important one: those who stand to benefit from airspace change should pay for the costs of such a change. In the light of the pandemic and its effects on the aviation industry, most airports have paused their work on airspace change. However, airspace modernisation remains critical to deliver additional capacity and improve access to airspace for different users; it also brings environmental benefits by reducing emissions.
Therefore, the Government have asked the Airspace Change Organising Group—ACOG—to revisit the master plan for airspace change in this light to ensure that the benefits of the programme are realised and that the investment already made is not lost. In July last year, ACOG published a report on remobilising airspace change. It included 10 recommendations aiming to ensure that the programme advances, while recognising the financial pressures faced by airports and the industry.
The DfT and the CAA immediately accepted recommendations 1, 2 and 4. First, we will ask ACOG to establish clear protocols for the airports that are able to resume work on airspace change, how we engage with those where work has paused and the exit process for those that decide to opt out of the programme, subject to their criticality to the programme as a whole. Secondly, we will ask NERL and ACOG to work together to re-evaluate NERL’s 2018 feasibility report into airspace modernisation to identify the core set of airport-led airspace changes that will be required in the post-Covid world. Lastly, in the short term, the CAA will work with ACOG to ensure that work on airspace change that can still progress does not conflict with or constrain the broader programme.
Officials continue to work closely with the CAA to consider the remaining seven recommendations. One of these includes funding to tackle the short-term  airspace change proposal—ACP—funding gaps potentially created by Covid-19. In the light of the pandemic, we recognise that the timescales in which airspace modernisation will take place will necessarily change. ACOG therefore plans to develop the future iteration of the airspace modernisation master plan in 2021.
The powers in the Bill are tied to the airspace modernisation strategy—the AMS—and the master plan. The Secretary of State could make a direction only to persons involved in airspace change based on this strategy. Therefore, it follows that there are no plans to use these powers in the near future while the industry recovers from the pandemic. As I have said, the need to modernise the UK’s airspace has not changed. We will need these powers in future once the master plan has been developed and the modernisation programme has been restarted to ensure that the strategy can be implemented in the years to come.
The Government recognise that there may be occasions when a small airport, or another person involved in airspace change, may require financial assistance to carry out some aspects of an ACP. We expect the CAA’s oversight team to work with the potential sponsor before recommending that the Secretary of State uses the powers to direct an ACP. At this early stage, if the potential sponsor expressed concerns that it did not have sufficient funding to proceed with a particular ACP, we would expect the oversight team to work with the potential sponsor to suggest alternative solutions.
I will set out again those solutions as they currently stand for the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. As she noted, they could include an alternative sponsor paying for the changes. The CAA oversight team could help to identify and seek support from another ACP sponsor most likely to benefit or whose own ACP plans depend on the change in question. When it comes to airspace modernisation, where the airspace of two neighbouring airports overlaps, there will necessarily have to be collaboration. There cannot be one winner and one loser. The CAA will have a key role to play in that, not only in terms of seeking redress for putting the airspace programme in place but also in considering the fairness of the proposals between those two airports.
The second source of funding is the CAA’s airspace modernisation support fund. This fund is intended to support projects that are important to the success of the AMS where there are no other appropriate mechanisms for the recovery of the costs. It should support AMS deployment, including activity that is critical to the implementation of the airspace master plan that ACOG has been commissioned to deliver under the AMS. The noble Baroness mentioned a figure of £10 million and stated that she did not feel it was enough. At the moment, the Government are working on a one-year spending review, and further consideration of the nation’s finances and the availability of funding for this programme will be considered in future spending plans.
Finally, there is potential—it is a last resort—for government funding. The Government could consider, on a case-by-case basis only, whether grant funding under Section 34(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act could  be provided to allow the airport director sufficient funds to bring forward an ACP. This funding would be subject to Treasury approval and would be provided only if absolutely necessary. Alternative funding mechanisms would be considered in the event that the sponsor is not an airport.
Due to these steps and the considerations of the industry as a result of the pandemic and further options that may be available to us, we do not expect a situation to arise where a potential sponsor would be put in financial difficulty by being directed to progress an ACP. I hope that, on the basis of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation and for placing it on the record. I note that the Government are not entirely closed to the idea that financial considerations may be important, and that they may have to act to ease the burden on one party against another or make some arrangement, even if it is not a direction. I found the answers useful; unfortunately, I would have found an answer where she agreed with me entirely more useful. Nevertheless, I think that this has gone far enough for me to be happy to withdraw the amendment, and I give notice that I do not intend to move the other amendments in this group.
Amendment 3 withdrawn.
Amendment 4 not moved.

  
Clause 3: Direction to co-operate in airspace change proposal
  

Amendments 5 to 7 not moved.

  
Clause 4: Directions under sections 2 and 3: supplemental
  

Amendments 8 and 9 not moved.

  
Clause 5: Delegation of functions to CAA
  

Amendment 10 not moved.
Amendment 11 not moved.

Baroness Henig: We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

  
Clause 10: Air traffic services licensed under Part 1 of the Transport Act 2020: enforcement

Amendment 12

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
12: Clause 10, page 9, line 25, at end insert—“(5A) In section 34 (investigations), for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—“(1) A person may make a representation to the CAA about an alleged or apprehended contravention of a section 8 duty or a licence condition.(2) Where a representation is made to the CAA, the CAA may—  (a) consider the representation;(b) investigate the alleged or apprehended contravention.””Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment provides the Civil Aviation Authority with discretion over whether to investigate alleged or apprehended contraventions of section 8 duties or licence conditions by air traffic services licence holders. This discretionary power would replace the current requirement for the CAA to investigate alleged or apprehended contraventions in certain circumstances.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, NATS and the CAA for their very constructive engagement on this issue, which has resulted in these government amendments. In moving Amendment 12 I will speak also to Amendment 21.
Amendment 12 seeks to amend Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000 to give the CAA greater flexibility to consider representations about an alleged or apprehended contravention—or a complaint—and to ensure that resources are used effectively. Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000 currently places an obligation on the CAA to investigate a complaint if the representation is made by—or on behalf of—a person who appears to have an interest. While this obligation does not apply if the representation appears to the CAA to be frivolous or vexatious, in practice this section as currently worded gives the CAA little discretion not to commence formal investigations. As a result, the licence holder and CAA may be presented with a considerable burden when engaging with an investigation which could potentially have serious resource implications, even where the CAA then decides not to take further enforcement action.
Amendment 12 will provide clarity and flexibility for the CAA and stakeholders as to when investigations should be commenced. This will reduce the potential for unnecessary investigations which have no material effect—or which result in no enforcement action being taken—without watering down the CAA’s powers, or the ability of parties to raise a complaint. The CAA will publish updated enforcement guidance, which can refer to the application of Section 34.
Amendment 21 is a minor, consequential amendment. The Bill already makes a consequential amendment to Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000. That provision would have changed the current reference in Section 34 from “condition of a licence” to “licence condition”. As Section 34 is being amended more substantively, that consequential amendment is no longer required.
I turn briefly to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I am grateful to the noble Lord for engaging with this. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the CAA would impose penalties on the licence holder, NERL, only where the contravention of the licence or Section 8 duty is serious, and it was deemed proportionate to do so. Following extensive engagement with NERL and detailed consideration, the Government are of the view that this amendment is not necessary. There are already sufficient legal checks and balances contained in the Bill, as well as through policy and guidance, to prevent disproportionate fines being levied on a licence holder.
The proposed amendment would also depart from the approach taken in the equivalent provision in the Civil Aviation Act 2012, meaning that the threshold  for imposing a penalty relating to NERL would be higher than that for an airport’s economic licence. This would create a disparity in CAA enforcement across the sector. I do, however, appreciate the importance of considering the seriousness of the contravention, along with the proportionality of imposing a fine, and I will take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords of what provision has already been made.
First, the power of the CAA to impose a penalty is discretionary, and it would do so only for the most serious contraventions or as a matter of last resort. All regulators, including the CAA, are already required to consider the better regulation agenda—as well as the Macrory principles of better enforcement—in exercising their regulatory and enforcement functions. The Macrory principles explicitly state that enforcement must be proportionate to the nature of the offence and to the harm caused. In practice, proportionality will be considered at every stage of a stepped process to enforcement, which will be set out in the CAA’s enforcement guidance and statement of policy on penalties. The CAA is required to consult relevant stakeholders on the latter. The CAA will decide whether to impose a penalty, and the level of penalty, by assessing the seriousness and harm caused to users by the contravention, through the lens of its statutory duties under the Transport Act 2000.
If the CAA were to propose a penalty on the licence holder, the Bill contains procedural safeguards, in the form of consultation with the licence holder, before the penalty could be imposed. This would give the licence holder the opportunity to highlight the steps it is taking to mitigate the contravention. The CAA would consider all stakeholder representations ahead of imposing a penalty. If the licence holder were to disagree with an imposed penalty, they could appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would have to have regard to the financeability duty imposed on the CAA under Section 2 of the Transport Act 2000. This approach is broadly aligned with equivalent provisions in the Civil Aviation Act 2012. The Government’s decision to modernise the air traffic licensing regime recognised that appropriate alignment with similar regulatory regimes would provide stakeholders with greater clarity and certainty and assist the CAA in exercising its regulatory functions and statutory duties in a more effective manner.
Turning to Amendment 20, I think we are agreed that the CAA should have a discretionary power to investigate complaints under Section 34, as set out in Amendment 12. It would therefore be inconsistent to narrow the power for the CAA to obtain information in relation to Section 34. I beg to move.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, these amendments relate to the CAA’s function to investigate complaints over breaches of licence conditions. Since the CAA has considerable powers, any limitation of those powers needs to be carefully balanced. There are concerns within various parts of the aviation industry about how the dual role of the CAA effectively operates in relation to these issues.
I regret that I am speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because I want to listen carefully to the thoughts behind his amendments. It is important  to fully understand the purpose of Amendment 20 in narrowing the power to obtain information. I believe it is in the spirit of the other limitations within this group of amendments, which seem entirely sensible.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, we fully support Amendments 12 and 21. We put forward amendments in Committee, in the light of conversations with the CAA, which we felt made some good points. We put these to the Government, who said, as Governments always do, “We don’t think much of your amendments but we agree with what you’re trying to do. Can we do it our way?” And my view is, yes, we can do it in the way they wish to draft it.
I turn to Amendment 19. In many ways, the Minister has answered the question: will the CAA behave in a responsible and proportionate way? She has basically assured us that it will, and that it is implied in general legislation.
On Amendment 20, we felt that the CAA’s powers were overly wide. I do not have a more specific reason for tabling the amendment, other than that the two concepts in Amendments 19 and 20 stood together.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for a brief and constructive discussion. This is the culmination of many discussions of these issues, and we were very keen to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we recognised his concerns. We did—in typical government fashion—decide that our amendment was better than his, for which I apologise, but I suspect we were probably right. I am very grateful that the noble Lord is supporting the amendments. I tried very hard to set out exactly what we would expect the CAA to do in relation to his Amendment 19, and I am pleased that I have reassured him.
On Amendment 20, we felt that it would be inconsistent to narrow the power for the CAA to obtain information in relation to Section 34, because the Bill currently includes the power for the CAA
“to obtain information for … carrying out its functions under section 34 and Schedule B1”.
This covers documents or information that the person has or are under their control. It is important to note that:
“The CAA may give a notice under this paragraph only in respect of information or documents that it reasonably requires”—
I suspect that is a bit of narrowing—
“for the purpose of carrying out its functions under section 34 or Schedule B1.”
Therefore, we do not feel that it is necessary to limit the power, as we believe that the Bill is already appropriately drafted. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment 12 agreed.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are  discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 12A

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
12A: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—“Airport slot allocation(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at United Kingdom airports is amended as follows.(2) After Article 10a insert—“Article 10aaTemporary power to make regulations about airport slot allocation1 The Secretary of State may by regulations amend or modify this Regulation or the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/2665) to make provision about the allocation of airport slots to air carriers in respect of specified periods.2 The Secretary of State may make regulations under this Article only if the Secretary of State considers that as a result of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2—(a) there has been a reduction in the level of air traffic in a period compared to the corresponding period in a relevant previous year, and(b) the reduction is likely to persist.3 The power to make regulations under this Article may not be exercised—(a) after 24 August 2024, or(b) in respect of a period after the winter season following 24 August 2024.4 Regulations under this Article may, in particular, make provision—(a) requiring coordinators to consider slots allocated for a specified period as having been operated by the air carrier to which they were initially allocated, subject to any conditions as may be specified in the regulations being met;(b) modifying Articles 8(2), 10(2) and (4) and 14(6) of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if they contained different percentage figures, subject to any conditions as may be specified in the regulations being met;(c) modifying Article 10(4) of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if it included additional reasons on the basis of which non-utilisation of slots by an air carrier can be justified;(d) modifying Article 14 of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if it included a power for the coordinator to withdraw slots from an air carrier for the remainder of a scheduling period where the coordinator determines that the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned and is no longer able to operate the slots allocated to it;(e) about enforcement of any provision made under this Article, including modifying for a specified period Article 14 of this Regulation or regulations 14 to 19 of the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006;(f) modifying for a specified period any provision of this Regulation relating to the allocation of slots to new entrants (including the definition of new entrant);(g) modifying for a specified period any provision of this Regulation relating to coordination parameters.  5 In paragraph 2(a) “relevant previous year” means any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of comparing levels of air traffic.”(3) In Article 13 (regulations)—(a) after paragraph 1 insert—1a A statutory instrument containing regulations under Article 10aa may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”;(b) in paragraph 2, for “Regulations” substitute “Any other regulations”.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would provide the Secretary of State with a temporary power to amend the airport slot allocation provisions in Council Regulation 95/93 and the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 where, due to coronavirus, there has been a reduction in the level of air traffic that is likely to persist.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, Amendments 12A, 18A, 18B and 44 are a series of government amendments to provide temporary powers for the alleviation of airport slot usage rules. This will amend retained EU regulation 95/93, which governs the allocation of UK airport slots.
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the 80:20 rule—or the so-called use it or lose it rule—encouraged the efficient use of scarce airport capacity, while allowing airlines a degree of flexibility in their operations. There are eight slot-constrained airports in the UK to which the 80:20 rule applies: Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Luton, Stansted, Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. The 80:20 rule mandates that, provided an airline has used its airport capacity at least 80% of the time in the preceding scheduling period—either winter or summer—it is entitled to those slots in the upcoming equivalent period.
Due to the unprecedented impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, in March last year the EU Commission took the decision to waive the 80:20 rule. Airport co-ordinators were instructed, when determining slot allocations for the upcoming summer season, to consider slots as having been operated regardless of whether they were actually used. This waiver covered the summer 2020 season and was subsequently extended to cover winter 2020-21. The UK supported the EU’s position.
Without alleviation, airlines may have incurred significant financial costs by operating flights at low load factors merely to retain their slots. Alleviation has helped to protect future connectivity and airline finances and reduced the risk of ghost flights being run to retain slots.
We anticipate that the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the aviation industry will continue for some time. Passenger demand is not predicted to return to 2019 levels until at least 2024-25. After we exited the UK-EU transition period on 31 December, regulation 95/93 was retained in UK law. However, when it was retained, the powers of the Commission to extend the period of alleviation from the 80:20 rule—which are being transferred to the Secretary of State—were expressly limited to 2 April 2021. As we expect disruption to air travel to continue for several years, it is therefore imperative that the UK has the necessary powers at its disposal to provide alleviation beyond the summer 2021 season should the evidence suggest that it is warranted.
Amendment 12A inserts a new clause after Clause 11 in Part 2 of the Bill. The new clause would insert a new Article 10aa into retained Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at United Kingdom airports. This would provide the Secretary of State with a power, exercisable until 24 August 2024 and not in respect of a scheduling period after winter 2024-25, to provide air carriers with alleviation from the requirement to operate airport slots allocated to them 80% of the time in order to retain the slots for the next equivalent scheduling period.
To allow for flexibility, this amendment also includes powers to modify the 80% requirement relating to slots usage. This will be an alternative to applying a full alleviation of the 80:20 rule for a specified scheduling period or season. This recognises that there could be alternative ratios, not 80:20, which could be applied to ensure the efficient use of slots. It will also allow the Secretary of State to apply conditions to an alleviation of the 80:20 rule, such as by setting a deadline for the return of slots not intended for operation, or that a waiver will not apply to a series of slots of an airline that, for example, ceases to operate at an airport.
The amendment also allows the Government to make other changes to the operation of the rules relating to the allocation of slots under this regulation for the duration of the relevant scheduling period. For example, the Government could change co-ordination parameters to reflect partial closures of airports, adopt temporary rules for the most efficient allocation of unused slots, and give the slot co-ordinator enforcement powers—for example, where unused slots are not returned with sufficient time to enable them to be effectively reallocated to other carriers. Having the powers to vary the 80:20 ratio and apply conditions to be in place on application of the rule will allow appropriate measures to support the sector’s recovery as passenger demand returns.
The use of this power will require secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure, for any applicable scheduling period in which evidence supports the conclusion that relaxation of the 80:20 rule is appropriate. The nature and extent of any relaxation will be subject to targeted consultation and, of course, there will be a debate in both Houses.
This approach will allow us to use current data and evidence, as well as to consult stakeholders, to make judgments on whether alleviations are required for each period and, if so, to what extent. We will also assess other institutions’ analysis and recommendations on slots usage rules for future seasons, including the Worldwide Airport Slot Board, and proposals from other areas, such as the European Union and the United States.
Amendment 18A is a consequential amendment to Clause 19 to reflect that the new clause on airport slot allocation extends to England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland, where aerodromes are a matter reserved for the devolved Assembly. As noted, however, all slot co-ordinated airports in the United Kingdom are currently in England.
Amendment 18B is a consequential amendment to Clause 20 and provides for the new clause to come into force immediately when the Bill is passed and  becomes an Act. This amendment ensures that regulations could be made under the new Clause 11A, relating to airport slot allocation, following Royal Assent, so that they are ready to come into force as soon as appropriate thereafter.
Amendment 44 amends the long title of the Bill to include reference to airport slot allocation. I beg to move.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these amendments and her explanation of the background. I should explain to the House that for most of my time as a Member of the other House I represented Aberdeen Airport; I say “most of my time” not because the airport relocated, but because my constituency boundaries changed. As a result of that, and of the fact that I commuted weekly by air to Parliament for decades—until lockdown last March, I continued to do so—I have taken an interest in aviation. Until lockdown I was also a frequent traveller around Europe and the rest of the world, and have experience of a variety of airlines and airports, large and small.
The allocation of airline landing slots is controversial, in terms of competition and commercial opportunity, as well as of access from feeder airports to the co-ordinated airports—a particular concern of mine. I completely understand the reason for the current waiver of the 80:20 “use it or lose it” rule, in the present climate. As the Minister said, we are following the same measures as the EU. Since she touched on this, does she foresee any circumstances in which the UK would, or should, take a different approach—for example, in how the proportions are reallocated? What would be the criteria or the conditions for that to happen?
I understand the complexity of managing slots, especially when airlines have seen their incomes decimated, and the fact that, as the Minister said, the predictions are for a long, slow period of recovery. At the same time, airport managers understandably wish to maximise traffic through their airports and resent it if airlines retain slots that they do not use, especially if other airlines are seeking additional slots with the intention of building a service. Given the need to maintain good relations with its airline clients, an airport may be unwilling to express its frustration. Clear, legally enforceable rules would be helpful, so does the Minister think that legal enforceability of the slots rules should be considered?
Access to services to and from London airports is especially critical for Scottish and Northern Ireland airports, both for access to London and for connections to Europe and the rest of the world. Of course services are driven by demand and commercial reality, but it is acknowledged that wider economic consideration for linkages is also important. That was demonstrated by the Government’s intervention on the collapse of Flybe, in relation to certain regional services.
Leaving aside the case for subsidies—I am not engaging with that in this debate, even for lifeline services, as it seems an important but separate issue—there has been a belief among many airport users that feeder routes to London may be profitable, but that the slots could be more profitably used for long-haul routes.  The feeder routes were not necessarily uncommercial, but perhaps less profitable. Control and possible hoarding of slots by the larger airlines restricts competition and makes it difficult for other airlines to develop alternative services.
At the height of oil and gas activity in Aberdeen, we had daily flights to not only Heathrow but Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted; more recently Loganair trialled a service to Southend, but that did not last long. British Airways pulled out of providing a service to Gatwick and London City years ago. I found that hard to understand, as many of the airline’s holiday flights operate from Gatwick and transfers from Heathrow to Gatwick are not relaxing. EasyJet pulled the last Gatwick link, and Flybe and Eastern ended the City flights. Flybe and Virgin both attempted to offer a Heathrow service but neither became established, although it was Flybe’s demise that ended its Heathrow link.
As of this week, because of the pandemic, we have one or two return flights a day to Heathrow, compared with the six or seven we would expect in normal times. EasyJet will start providing daily flights to Luton from March, and—hallelujah—to Gatwick from May, Covid permitting. No doubt users of Belfast Airport will have a similar story, while Inverness has had to fight to retain links to London. Indeed, the reduction in services to London has seen business switch to Amsterdam and Paris, to which we have direct services, although those services, too, are currently limited.
As has been said, airlines’ recovery post-pandemic is likely to be slow but could also be ruthlessly competitive. Will the Government consider how the allocation of slots can be managed to ensure that it works in the best interests of all stakeholders, including the flying customers and feeder airports? Can airlines be prevented from hoarding routes they do not use, if that keeps out feeder routes or newcomers?
What steps can be taken to ensure that the allocation of slots takes into account the economic and social needs of remote communities, which are by definition more dependent on air links? Just for the record, the train journey from Aberdeen to London takes a minimum of seven hours, and at the moment we have only one direct service without changes; the others take longer. For people living in such areas, flying is not a luxury but an essential part of life.
Could the allocation of medium to long-haul slots be linked to a requirement to apportion and use a minimum allocation of slots from feeder airports to the co-ordinated airports? I repeat that this is not about subsidising those services. The suspicion is that they could be commercial, and probably are, but are just not as profitable. Does the Minister agree that the policy of slot allocation should be closely monitored to ensure that it is fit for purpose in the challenging future we face?
I understand the reason behind the amendments and accept it. But I believe that we should review the role of the allocation of slots, in a holistic way that takes into account the needs of the co-ordinated airports to optimise the use of their space, gives the feeder airports the linkages they need, and gives the passengers  —who, after all, are really who the airports exist for—the choice and the services that can be achieved, rather than simply subjecting them to a decision based on the bottom line. Given the dire straits that many airlines are in, it is understandable that they should think in that way, but if the Government have a role, it should be to ensure fairness and social and economic connectivity, not just the profitability of the airlines.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, this is part two of a discussion that we started earlier this week on the SI on this subject, which gave the Government temporary powers. Since Committee stage, a year ago, we have had the impact of the pandemic and the EU has waived the usual 80:20 rules on slot usage. That was welcome because it avoids ghost flights—empty flights, just to keep slots.
In the amendments the Government are giving themselves powers until 2024 to continue to waive the rules altogether or to vary them, possibly by varying the percentages. That is a whole new issue to have entered the Bill—something that was simply not there a year ago. I wondered about the 2024 date and whether the period was a tad lengthy but time and time again in this pandemic, things have taken much longer to play out than we thought they would. On reflection, 2024 seems to allow a reasonable period ahead to give a level of certainty.
Because we did not have these substantial amendments prior to Report today, however, I have some questions for the Minister. First, Amendment 12A involves temporary powers to make regulations about slot allocation. Paragraph 4(d) of the new article it inserts would allow the co-ordinator to “withdraw slots” from a carrier where it is determined that
“the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned”.
My question to the Minister is: how would that be determined? I have in mind a question similar to the one I asked earlier in the week about Gatwick. Virgin has announced that it will not fly from Gatwick in future and will no longer have a base there. Indeed, it no longer does have a base there—but it retains its slots. Slots are a very valuable commodity, so how is such a situation likely to be approached in future?
My second question is on the same amendment. Paragraph 2(a) refers to “a relevant previous year”, which is later defined as:
“any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for … comparing levels of … traffic.”
That is an extraordinarily broad and vague definition, as levels of traffic vary dramatically according to the make-up of carriers from specific airports—with new ones coming and going—and to their commercial decisions. It also uses the term of a year, while slot waivers work in seasons to reflect the patterns of demand, which vary from season to season. Can the Minister confirm that the year as a whole will be the point of comparison?
Another point that I raised in our debate earlier this week is that the number of available slots currently greatly outweighs the capacity of the airlines to fill them, because as the pandemic has progressed they have greatly reduced their staff and the number of planes that they own or rent. How do the Government intend to approach this problem, whereby the number of slots cannot be filled by the current capacity of airlines?
Slot hoarding has to be tackled. The 80:20 rule is designed to maintain the competitiveness of the industry, which means fair ticket prices for passengers. If the waiver is exploited it will be bad for new entrants to the market, bad for passengers, and bad for airports. The powers or conditions that the Government have included here, therefore, and the potential to vary the 80:20 ratio, seem a sensible and welcome approach to the situation that we face, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanations.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, we generally support these four amendments, and we thank the Minister for tabling them for our examination. Nevertheless, one must recognise that the dilemma brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his contribution, is a real one. It is important to see these amendments as quite separate from the general problem. Can the Minister tell the House what examination of this problem the Government expect to conduct in the future?
I know from my own experience, which goes back to the 1980s, that slot allocation is a very difficult and challenging problem in the airline industry. One of the problems in life is that when there are many parties to finding an overall solution to the distribution of a scarce resource the solutions you get become very difficult to change: creating a level of change that would address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would be in the best “Yes Minister” category—very brave. I hope, nevertheless, that the Minister can lay out some of the plans for addressing this issue.
On the amendments as a whole, I have a few questions. The Minister may have answered them—I was slightly distracted, so I hope the House will forgive me if we go over old ground.
First, my understanding is that each season’s solution, under these amendments, will be subject to an affirmative order. I would value a simple assurance on that.
Secondly, the Heathrow authorities told us that in their view the agreements that were being developed through the Worldwide Airport Slot Board were more optimal than the solution we have had to adopt for the summer of 2021. Should, therefore, the parties—the airlines, airports and other stakeholders—come to a worldwide agreement on slot allocation? These things are co-ordinated on a worldwide basis. Certainly, when I was a senior executive the most important date of my year was the IATA timetable conference in October, which addressed the following summer’s slots. If the airlines and airports produce an overall solution, is there enough flexibility in this proposed solution to allow the Secretary of State—I stress allow, not require—to endorse such a comprehensive, multiagency agreement?
Finally, can the Minister assure the House—and the industry—that there will be adequate consultation with all stakeholders for each season that is managed under these amendments?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments, and I recognise that it is far from ideal to bring them to the House on Report. It is simply the  nature of the beast and the situation that we are in: these amendments relate to the Covid-19 pandemic and our hoped-for recovery from it.
I will first address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He set out many of the challenges faced by the Government—both the short-term task of building back our aviation industry, and the longer-term strategy for the sector. I recognise that slot allocation is a challenge. I would not say it is controversial—it is just one of the challenges that one has to deal with.
The Government have recognised that this is an issue and carried out a consultation on it, alongside, I think, the consultation on the aviation strategy—which was a little while ago, in perhaps 2018 or 2019. We did, therefore, recognise the issue, and we asked the industry and other parties with an interest in the aviation sector how we might reform slot allocation. It remains the Government’s intention to do a piece of work on the long-term reform of slot allocation. But that is not for now. Now, we have to deal with the current situation by making amendments that are not minor but do not amount to an overhaul of the entire slot allocation process.
We do take into account the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised. The noble Lord asked whether we would take a different approach to the EU, and I suspect that we will, but not that we necessarily will—it depends on the EU’s approach to the periods after summer 2021. We will, however, certainly be looking at other percentages in relation to a waiver, and considering very carefully the conditions that we attach to the regulations.
The noble Lord also mentioned enforcement powers, and I think that I said, in my opening remarks, that we would consider them. There are probably at least three key elements to the way in which we will take this forward. We need to think about: new entrants and whether they are able to get into the market; the needs of passengers, which is a critical element; and—as the noble Lord pointed out to great effect—regional connectivity, particularly to places, such as Aberdeen, where the alternative is very long. Being on a train for seven hours does not sound like huge fun.
I think we will return to many of the points the noble Lord raised when we discuss the regulations that will be put before your Lordships’ House. I look forward to those debates; I think they will be quite challenging, and we will be able to have discussions on all the elements he mentioned.
Turning to issues raised the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am pleased that she agrees with 2024. Would it not be nice if we did not have to do anything until 2024? But I suspect we may need to be doing something by then, so we are just future-proofing the amendments. The noble Baroness had a number of quite detailed questions about how one, for example, determines that an operator has ceased operations. Those are exactly the things we are asking the sector at the moment. The consultation, as the noble Baroness knows, started right at the end of December—a three-week targeted consultation to try to get to the bottom of these very knotty problems.
The noble Baroness also asked which year should be used as a baseline. Initially, we will use 2019. Will that always be an appropriate baseline? I cannot answer that, but I am fairly sure we will come back to your Lordships’ House when we do the affirmative regulations and have this discussion again. She asked whether we will be looking over a whole year: yes, of course, because summer is compared to summer, and winter is compared to winter, because the flight patterns are different. It is certainly our intention that this is not bad for new entrants or for passengers. That will be front of mind when we make these considerations.
On the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I appreciate that Heathrow recommends that alternative, “oven-ready” proposals are used by the Worldwide Airport Slot Board. For summer 2021, all we have available are the EU powers, and we are able to extend those powers, which, as your Lordships will know, we have already done. We accept, though, that, going forward, international consultation will be very important. An agreement reached internationally by airlines and airports may have a great impact on our thinking. However, I point out that the Government will have other priorities that we would like to insert into our considerations, as I mentioned previously: regional connectivity, passengers and competition at our airports.
So consultation is going to be the watchword. We will be coming back to your Lordships’ House every six months with these regulations for a while, and we will all become fairly expert at discussing the trials and tribulations of slot allocation and how we get the best possible outcome for all the stakeholders involved.
Amendment 12A agreed.
Amendment 13 not moved.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14, and I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 14

Baroness Randerson: Moved by Baroness Randerson
14: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—“Review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft, and whether it provides sufficient protection to individuals.(2) The review should make reference to, but is not limited to—(a) whether privacy legislation is sufficient to cover threats posed to personal privacy by unmanned aircraft;(b) the merits of introducing mandatory remote identification;(c) the merits of introducing mandatory geo-fencing;(d) whether criminal law sufficiently protects against—(i) the modification of unmanned aircraft; and  (ii) the weaponisation of unmanned aircraft;(e) whether there should be a minimum age for the purchase and operation of unmanned aircraft, and what the appropriate age would be;(f) whether the CAA’s system for registering operators of unmanned aircraft ensures sufficient supervision for those who are under the age of 18 operating unmanned aircraft;(g) whether a licensing requirement should be introduced for unmanned aircraft above a certain weight;(h) the Government’s strategy for managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas.(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in the light of its findings.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a further review in the same terms every 12 months after the review under subsection (1).”

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 14 and give notice that I am minded to put it to a vote at the end of the debate. As I said earlier, this Bill is a bit of a mess—through no fault of the Minister; it is simply the passage of time, and time has definitely taken its toll. This applies in particular to the clauses on unmanned aircraft.
Since 2016, I have been urging the Government to bring forward legislation on drones. The Minister reminds us from time to time that unmanned aircraft include model aircraft, but I am concerned here solely with drones. In the five years since I first addressed this issue, drone technology has been transformed, and so has the number of drones in operation. They are of massive importance to our military, to the police and other emergency services, and to countless businesses across the UK. It is wonderful, transformative technology; it is also very worrying technology. In the wrong hands, drones carry illegal drugs, take illicit mobile phones into prisons and threaten major loss of life by interfering with flights, as we saw at Gatwick in 2019. “Wrong hands” obviously includes criminals, but also careless and untrained hands.
Since we started this Bill in 2019, EU legislation has been updated, and that is reflected in the details of the amendments here today. But they do not reflect the broader approach that is now needed. The Bill is a wasted opportunity, because it is largely a list of additional powers for the police. That approach is unsatisfactorily narrow, and my amendment outlines the broad approach that I believe needs to be taken. It needs to address the serious concerns of BALPA, the Airport Operators Association and many airlines about safety and security risks from drones. I have specified the range of issues I am worried about, but I do not believe it is an exclusive list. Some of them relate to technical advances, such as the availability of geofencing and remote ID. Others relate to possible shortcomings in criminal law in relation to the deliberate weaponisation of drones. Potential risks from overseas exist now that the technology allows longer-distance flying.
The amendment in this group in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, also raises important issues about commercially used drones, which are often specialist and valuable. My amendment addresses the issue of the appropriate minimum age to  be in charge of a drone. EU legislation allows a minimum age of 14, and the Government have supported this. But that is a minimum: it does not have to be that low within the EU rules, and, in any event, we have of course left the EU. Legislation allows drones to be registered to anyone over 18, but they can be flown by people younger than this, and there is no requirement for the registered owner to be present and in the line of sight of the person flying the drone. So, the question is whether this is sufficient supervision.
In preparation for this debate, I spent a long time online looking at adverts for drones, from under £100 to thousands of pounds. In all the adverts I looked at, I saw no reference at all to the rules on registration and supervision, line of sight, heights for flight and so on. Presumably, all that comes with the instructions in the box. But I am not entirely sure that everyone reads the instructions in the box carefully.
Also untouched by this Bill is the issue of privacy. There are serious concerns that drones can allow invasions of privacy. I said earlier that the Bill concentrates on police powers, but police use drones as a tool themselves, and they are a very useful tool in fighting crime. The vast majority of police forces now use drones, but there appears to be no overall dedicated guidance for police on the way in which they are to be deployed, or provision of information on how they should be used. This is a potentially controversial area, as we saw when Derbyshire police used drones at the start of the pandemic to watch walkers in the countryside, with the potential to levy fines on them.
This is a fast-developing technology, and my amendment recognises that by seeking a review of the legislation within six months, and every year thereafter, to ensure that it is, and remains, fit for purpose. I am not prescribing solutions, just outlining issues to be addressed and asking for a more comprehensive and effective approach to the whole issue of drones.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I support Amendment 14 and shall speak to Amendment 15, which stands in my name. It is a probing amendment and I shall not divide the House on it.
After Committee, I was informed that unmanned aircraft and drone operators holding CAA permission for commercial operation—PfCOs—were concerned about the scale of the police powers introduced by the Bill. Recent changes to the ANO 2016 affecting the use of unmanned aircraft have dispensed with PfCOs and new categories for unmanned aircraft operations are provided for all users. The concern is that use of the police powers designed principally for recreational users or potential criminal use could cause commercial operators loss of time or money, or even cause them to fail to meet a contract.
For example, a building inspection by a drone operator might involve manoeuvres putting the drone closer to the structure than would be acceptable for a hobby user. Were the police to order the immediate grounding of a drone in such a CAA-approved use or, looking to the future, of a drone with CAA operational authorisation for beyond visual sight, extended visual sight or even swarm flights, this could lead to business disruption and loss. Would the police consider a complaint from  the public reasonable grounds to order grounding? Would the police authority be responsible for such a commercial loss? I expect not, but serious cases might lead to some form of claim by insurers or the operators themselves, so it is reasonable to suggest that, for flights with CAA operational authorisation, the most the police might be required to do would be to seek presentation of the CAA approval licence, as new Schedule 9 envisages. If still concerned, the police should report the operator to the CAA, which already has extensive statutory powers for investigation and sanction.
As the Minister informed me in an exchange of letters we have had about this amendment, new risk-based categories apply to all UA activities, but this does not seem to be any reason for commercial operators, however approved or risk-assessed by the CAA, to be less concerned about the difficulties they might face if the police powers were to be exercised in ways that, maybe inadvertently, were to delay or interfere with the approved use which the CAA had given to the commercial operator.
These operators are further concerned about the level of knowledge of the relevant extensive ANO and CAP 722 publications required of regional police forces to deal with unmanned aircraft operating commercially and whether their increased workload will be funded, particularly as this activity expands. No one would welcome a breach of trust between the police and commercial businesses if police involvement were to be disruptive to commercial use. In further exchanges with the Minister—I thank her for her engagement with me over these concerns—I have not been given sufficient reassurance about the way police powers in this Bill will be used so as not to lead to potentially harmful outcomes for the commercial operator.
There is considerable growth potential in the commercial use of UAs and, indeed, in the market globally for such remotely controlled devices. The Government quote an addition of £42 billion and more than 600,000 jobs by 2030. The Bill provides an opportunity to show that such commercial users are recognised and being supported by statute and regulation specifically designed to deal with, but not onerously restrict, their activities.
A further consideration is whether some statutory approved way to claim for loss, disruption or damage to the business of the commercial operator—for example, if its unmanned aircraft was incorrectly impounded by the police—should be provided. Would this too be by means of secondary legislation, as envisaged for appeals against fixed penalty fines?
My purpose with this amendment is to seek government reaction to the need to provide for CAA-authorised and open operations in ways that the police powers in the Bill will do nothing to threaten or interfere with their commercial use and market growth. Other specialists, such as firemen and ambulance drivers, are set separate rules to other road users, which the police observe. Will the Minister agree to proposing further amendment to police powers in this Bill to address commercial uses and demonstrate the Government’s laudable commitment to supporting this fledgling industry? I sense that there is strong backing for this  industry and the Minister’s direction to the Bill team would help to deliver it. I shall be happy to assist in the preparation of any amendments she decides to table.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I support the probing amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, to insert a new clause. I will not repeat what he just said, but I underline its importance. If we go back in time a little, the Minister may recall that, when she first took office on drones, we—the UK—were a bit behind the curve compared to France, Ireland and Canada. Now, we have an opportunity to take the lead, which is what this new clause is partially about. I want to re-emphasise to Her Majesty’s Government that this industry, in particular, is here to develop commercial distribution and to function at all, the police should not be involved. It should be left to the CAA. It is fair to be open and say to my noble friend that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and I have been in discussions with the industry—particularly with its legal representative, Richard Ryan, who is a well-known and very well-qualified barrister.
I shall give a couple of practical examples. I have been involved with drones almost since the day they were invented. If you have a situation with a constable—let us say in Sandy, where I live—who, under Schedule 9, is simply asking for reasonable grounds for belief, which may be founded on a complaint by a passer-by, the consequence is quite significant for a commercial operator as the constable will have the power to request information while the flight is taking place. I do not know whether the Minister has had a go at flying these things—I hope that she has—but they are not that easy; I speak as a former pilot and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is a very experienced pilot. Anyway, the flight is still taking place, and the operator is being interrupted. Currently, under Part 1 of Schedule 9, paragraph (1)(a) states that while
“a flight by a small unmanned aircraft is taking place”,
the constable may, as paragraph 2(1)(a)(ii) states, require the person to provide
“information that would assist … the constable to verify that … that flight”
is valid. The issue with this is: who takes responsibility for the flight when the pilot is being interrupted by the constable? What if the drone switches out of GPS mode and into attitude mode? It then clearly requires more care and attention with respect to carrying out flight safety under Article 241 of the ANO 2016. I know that my noble friend has all these details at her fingertips, but I remind her that Article 241 clearly states:
“A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.”
I have a couple of other points, which are perfectly practical as well. The amendments to Schedule 9 rely on the fact that a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened, as well as other aspects. How would the constable know at that time what precise provision of the ANO 2016 was being contravened? In practical terms, this is unachievable, due to the complexity of the legislation and/or further amendments to the ANO, leading ultimately to a possible miscarriage of justice.
My next point is very relevant to what is happening in the Covid world at the moment. What is the position if a remote pilot is conducting numerous flights at the same time, whether it is at a drone lightshow or transporting medical supplies on behalf of the NHS at scale? Some of these flights could be beyond the line of sight. This is relevant because, when we start operating at scale, the police will have significant powers which can harm the industry, create unnecessary reputational damage and be of significant cost and disruption to the whole unmanned aviation supply chain.
I have half a dozen other examples, but I do not think that the Minister wants to hear them this evening, although I would be more than happy to supply them. I ask her to reflect that this is a new industry that can and will create many jobs, increase skills and set the UK up as a leading pioneer in unmanned aviation. A system that confronts companies with such onerous terms in the legislation, that captures absolutely all operators, is, in my and my noble friend’s judgment, flawed. We have a situation where the Government have taken a view. We have looked at other jurisdictions, such as Canada—a country I know quite well—where the legislation is about half the scale of ours.
My final thought is that the potential for the loss of income, innovation and opportunity will be significant if this law applies to commercial operations, or those with an operational authorisation, especially in the short term. There is significant reliance on a constable knowing all the relevant aviation laws that apply. This is no good when a drone operator, for example, has a roof survey the next day which he cannot perform because his equipment has been appropriated by the constable in lieu of an investigation with no time limit.
Here is a wonderful potential industry. We need to make sure that, yes, there is control, but that can be done by the CAA, an organisation for which I have had the greatest respect as a pilot myself. Leave it to the CAA—that is what should happen. I hope my noble friend will reflect on some of the evidence that we have managed to produce this afternoon.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, we have heard a very powerful case from the previous speaker. I see no reason for me to detain the House unreasonably and will speak briefly, principally to Amendment 15. My concerns in Committee centred on what I saw as the need to isolate potentially irresponsible non-commercial users of drones from those who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, seek to exploit commercially this new and innovative use of the technology.
During the debate on 27 January last year, I raised the issue of the confiscation of equipment. On 12 February, I raised the same issue, in particular where rogue operators breached the rules. There has to be a procedure in place which more clearly separates and differentiates the potential rogue operator from the legitimate commercial operation. Fines are too often no deterrent. We know from government stats that there is a high incidence of non-payment among those who have little respect for the law. We need a separate, more vigorously enforced regime for rogue drone operators. We cannot treat CAA-authorised operations in a way which appears similar to that in which we treat recreational users.
The danger in the Government’s approach is that the recreational user will be the beneficiary of the developing, lighter-touch regime that will ultimately and inevitably have to apply to commercial drone operations. This is inevitable as commercial operators exert increasing pressure for the introduction of such a regime to protect commercial viability. Alternatively, if this does not happen, commercial operators will be penalised by the more vigorous approach that will inevitably have to apply to the recreational user. The systems proposed are flawed.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has valiantly sought to convince the department and Ministers of the dangers, but has received little reassurance to date by way of response. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, can clearly see the writing on the wall and therefore seeks a review of the new regime at a later stage. She is to be congratulated on the persistent way in which she has pursued these matters over a number of years. Either way, the system when tested will need to be reviewed. We need two, distinct sets of rules and regimes; a separate regime that is fair to all.

Lord Balfe: My Lords, I remind the House of my role as president of BALPA. I thank the Department for Transport for its constructive engagement with officers from BALPA in getting this far—goodness knows, we have spent a long time getting this far with this Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that rogue drone operators are clearly very different to the responsible drone operator that we wish to deal with. However, I am not sure that supporting this amendment is the right way forward. The Bill is not the right vehicle to include a requirement to review unmanned aircraft legislation. It cannot just be left to the CAA, as has been suggested, because if there were a major incident, government would be expected to have a role and to respond. At the same time, the development of drones is proceeding at an enormously fast pace. Will the Minister reassure us that a system of regular review will be put in place?
The serious concerns of BALPA are not limited to where we are today but look to where we might be tomorrow. We hear, for instance, about the problems with multiple use of drones, where one person controls more than one drone. The first instinct is to say, “That’s terrible, isn’t it? We really should have only one person per drone,” but let me put another scenario to the House. If someone is lost at sea, or there is an air crash, you may well want to have a swarm of drones covering a wide area. For that to be effective, you would need one central person to be in control so as to investigate what was beneath, and being observed by, a number of drones. It is not quite as simple as some people seem to imagine.
I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be a regular review, and that she will come back to the House at an appropriate time, possibly in answer to a Question, or put something in the Library, outlining the principles which could follow that review. It is no good saying that we want one every five years or every two years; we need to be able to respond fairly quickly to matters as they come up. I will certainly not be supporting a Division, as passing this clause would  not take us forward at all. However, my hope is that some of the principles contained therein are the sort that should be borne in mind in developing the policies that we want to see for the effective and reasonable control of drones, commercially and privately.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, there is a real and strong disagreement within your Lordships’ House. There are those whom I would call almost the “free enterprise at all costs” people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. They would have very little and ineffective regulation of the system. Then there are those who are being cautious about the fact that this is a rapidly developing industry, while we know that some part of the industry is in the hands of the most unscrupulous people.
I do not accept the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that a police constable is going to interfere with people whom he knows are legitimately carrying out proper business of this sort, such as looking at bridges or buildings. These people will, or should, be registered in a separate register of those who have legitimate reasons to fly drones. Those who do not have a legitimate reason should, in many cases, be subject to the full force of the law because much of what they are doing is illegal.
The other thing is that drones can be a big nuisance factor. We will come on to that in a later amendment, when we talk about areas of outstanding natural beauty. But in her approach to this, the Minister should think about people who are legitimate drone owners—those who are licensed and registered with the CAA, and presumably the local police or enforcing authority—and those who probably should not be let near drones, and are using them for nefarious or criminal activities. However, in considering this amendment, it is important to say that this industry is developing very quickly. The thought of it proceeding on its way with a formal system of being able to review the way it is turning out, probably fairly often, seems a sensible precaution.

Lord Rosser: I will direct my comments to Amendment 14 but will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to all the points made in respect of Amendment 15.
Amendment 14, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft and whether it provides sufficient protection to individuals. The amendment also sets out a number of issues to which such a review should refer but to which it should not be restricted. The review would be required to make a recommendation on whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in the light of its findings.
Unmanned aircraft—drone—technology is developing fast, and the Government need to ensure that they are proactive, not reactive, when it comes to legislating, where necessary, to reflect developments in this technology and the expansion in the use of drones in the public services, by the Armed Forces and in both the commercial and leisure sectors, as well as by those whose priority may not be operating drones safely and responsibly.
As has been said, unmanned aircraft offer great benefits to society but can also lead to significant areas of concern. Emergency services are utilising drones to save lives, and parcel and freight companies, for example, look to use drones to deliver vital medical supplies as well as day-to-day purchases. Unmanned aircraft are now used in many industries to carry out work that is potentially hazardous for human beings or can be done much more quickly or thoroughly by the use of drones. They are also used by the police, as we have seen during the current Covid-19 crisis and the associated lockdowns—an aspect to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred.
However, there is another side, as we saw from the drone sightings at Gatwick Airport not so long ago, which resulted in flight cancellations and diversions affecting many thousands of passengers. It led, I believe, to a COBRA meeting being convened and the Army being called in, and it also highlighted the urgent need for this Bill, which nevertheless has been going through this House at a snail’s pace and still has to go through the Commons.
We have to be in a position to be sure that legislation keeps pace with developments in the increasing use, and, most importantly, potential misuse, of unmanned aircraft, as they become more sophisticated and powerful in what they can do and for how long—as well as in their range and areas of activity, not least the monitoring of civilians, and in relation to who uses them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also said, drones are used for criminal activity as well.
There is a need to ensure that legislation continues to provide sufficient protection to individuals and that this does not get overlooked in this developing field of technology. There needs to be a mechanism for ensuring the continued adequacy and appropriateness of existing legislation, including this Bill, in a field of activity that is expanding and moving forward and will continue to do so with some rapidity.
It is not sufficient to say that legislation will be kept under review: there are so many areas nowadays, across so many departments, where the Government tell us that legislation is kept under continuous review. We need something in the Bill to ensure that, in such a fast-developing field as unmanned aircraft and the uses to which they are put, regular reviews of legislation take place, covering, but not limited to, the specific points referred to in the amendment. It is equally important that Parliament has a clear role in the review process, which is also provided for in this amendment. Amendment 14 has our support.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. I will take each amendment in this group in turn, starting with Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which the Government believe is neither necessary nor appropriate.
The purpose of Part 3 is to attach police powers to offences in a separate piece of legislation—the Air Navigation Order 2016—and to other offences. Therefore, this Bill is not the appropriate place for a requirement to review unmanned aircraft legislation. Furthermore,  a number of reviews are already due to take place. I hope this will satisfy the noble Baroness that her amendment is not necessary.
The ANO 2016 is the legislation that currently sets out offences that are specific to unmanned aircraft. Article 275 of the ANO 2016 states that it must be reviewed every five years, and its first statutory review is due to be completed by August 2021. This review will assess the extent to which the law surrounding unmanned aircraft, in so far as it is laid down in that instrument, is operating effectively to achieve its objectives. Of course, this may well be within the noble Baroness’s six-month timeframe.
As the impact assessment for the Bill states, this legislation will be kept under continuous review to ensure that it achieves its objectives: to address the key gaps identified from the 2018 consultation on the future of drones in the UK and to improve the ability of the police to respond to UA misuse, thereby reducing the irresponsible and malicious use of UA. This is in line with the Government’s practice of keeping all UA legislation under review, regardless of whether there is a legislative requirement to do so.
Moreover, ordinarily, a five-year timeframe applies to post-implementation reviews of legislation. This is recommended in the Government’s better regulation framework and the requirements of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, in relation to new measures adopted in secondary legislation regulating business and the voluntary sector. Furthermore, the Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy, published in October 2019, commits the Government to continuing to develop proposals for inclusion in future legislation, so that the legal framework within which operational responders must operate does not become obsolete or hamper their ability to respond to and investigate malicious drone activity. I am very much hoping that these forthcoming reviews will reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the Government take our ability to legislate for the fast-moving world of the unmanned aircraft sector very seriously indeed, and we have work ongoing to make sure that our legislation is up to date.
The noble Baroness briefly mentioned the use of drones by the police. We have had a few conversations about this issue. It might be worth reassuring her that the police have to abide by the same laws as everybody else. Drones are incredibly helpful to police forces and can often be used in places where there is risk to life or where a helicopter might be too expensive or not as efficient. The police have to act within the same laws as everybody else and have operational procedures that overlay those laws in terms of the right way and right circumstances in which to use drones. Decisions for their use are put into place by each police force, which has clear guidance on how they are to be used.
Responsible use is of course really important—for example, on the collection and use of video footage, again, unsurprisingly, the police have to follow the same laws as everybody else. There is also a legal position on public bodies’ use of video footage that is well regulated by directed surveillance authorities. The police are responsible for ensuring that data is collected, processed and stored in accordance with the law. In terms of the safe operation of a drone, the police must  do so in accordance with the Air Navigation Order 2016 and, where needed, if the operation is slightly riskier, they will have to apply to CAA for operational authorisation —as, indeed, does anyone else. If any individual has concerns about the use of drones by police, of course they can make a complaint to the police and crime commissioner or the mayor, where appropriate.
I turn to the amendment tabled by noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, which generated an interesting and lively discussion on permissions for commercial operators. Now that the implementing regulation is in place, there is no difference in the requirement to obtain a permission for a commercial or a recreational operator. I will call them “recreational operators” but there are all sorts of different operators. That is absolutely right, because I do not subscribe to the view that “commercial” is good and “recreational” is necessarily bad. Creating that false dichotomy is not really helpful.
It is down to risk, rather than who the person is with their hands on the control. So the implementing regulation draws no distinction between commercial and recreational flights and the ANO has already been amended to reflect that. Of course, the offences that noble Lords are discussing today relate to that ANO but do not amend the ANO itself. So the need to obtain a permission for a purely commercial operation has now been revoked—but, of course, that could be a good thing. Many commercial operators will now be very pleased, because they will not need to apply for a licence to fly a drone which a recreational operator standing right next to them could fly without a licence.
It strikes me that this should actually be fairly good news for commercial operators; therefore, it is only the higher-risk operations in the specific or certified category where a UAS operator will require authorisation or certification from the CAA. Most commercial operators will be perfectly competent and able to get that permission, authorisation or certification and, indeed, have it to hand in the unlikely event that a police officer or constable believes that something is not being done in accordance with the law. So I do not accept the scenarios of doom and gloom whereby dreadful things will happen if somebody has to put their hand in their pocket and pull out a piece of paper to hand to a police constable and say, “Yep, I’ve got my authorisation, here it is”, and the flight could quite frankly continue.
The police have been heavily involved in the drafting and preparation of the Bill and they have not said that they feel that this intervention with a commercial operator would be particularly onerous or difficult. They are content that they will be able to work with operational partners to make sure that the aspects of the Bill are implemented successfully. So the legislation makes it very clear what the requirement for police to engage with the UAS operator is—to establish what authorisation they have and the category they are flying in, be it for recreational or commercial use. Where there is any doubt whether an operator is acting in a lawful way, the police will be able to draw on the guidance provided. Again, I do not fear that the police will not know what they are doing in this regard. The Bill makes it clear that the police, in engaging with a  UAS operator, can require information to be provided about what category they are flying in and what consents they have.
So I hope that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, will feel reassured. I suspect he may not, but it is not our intention to carve out different sets of rules for commercial and recreational operators. We absolutely understand and respect the commercial unmanned aircraft sector; we believe it has a huge future in our country and beyond and we do not want to put anything in its way or stop people doing their jobs. However, people in that sector do not justify special treatment; they should be treated exactly the same as anybody else who flies an unmanned aircraft, and that is what the regulation does. I believe it actually simplifies the system and that it will have some advantages for commercial operators, some of whom will not now need a permit to do their flights.
I hope that, based on the reassurances I have given to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, she will choose to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate; it has been very interesting. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support, for signing the amendment and for his clear explanation of his position.
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that she has not reassured me. There has been a very interesting range of views, but the Bill is just a start. My contacts with the drone industry indicate that it believes that a modern, strong legislative framework would be helpful to the industry and not a constraint. I know of several organisations that retain very serious concerns about drones and their operation in the modern world, and about their safety and the societal impact of, for example, illegal activity.
The Minister very fully outlined the Government’s approach, saying that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to have the reviews that I suggest. She referred to the ANO 2016 and the statutory review this year, which she has referred to in previous conversations. I looked at that review, but it does not have the breadth of the one that I am calling for and is not in line with the scope of the amendment that I have tabled. I am afraid that, without a commitment from the Minister to the kind of comprehensive approach that I have in mind, I feel compelled to call a vote on this amendment.
Ayes 255, Noes 274.

Division conducted remotely on Amendment 14
Amendment 14 disagreed.
Amendment 15 not moved.

Baroness Henig: We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 16. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and Minister may speak once only and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

  
Clause 17: Part 3: interpretation

Amendment 16

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
16: Clause 17, page 10, line 31, leave out “exit day” and insert “IP completion day”Member’s explanatory statementThis would change the definition of “subordinate legislation” to catch instruments made under retained direct EU legislation on or after “IP completion day”. Retained direct EU legislation came into existence then and it is therefore when powers conferred by the legislation became exercisable.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, the Government made a series of amendments to the ANO 2016 by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020, which came into force on 31 December 2020. Those amendments were mainly necessary because implementing regulation 2019/947, or the IR, became applicable on 31 December 2020.
The IR was retained in UK law on 31 December 2020 and establishes a framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft to ensure that they are used safely. This includes requirements relating to registration,  competency testing, authorisations for higher-risk flights, as well as provision for the creation of geographical zones in which UA use is restricted.
As the IR makes provision for some of the same subject matter as the previous requirements relating to small unmanned aircraft in the ANO, it was necessary to make amendments to the ANO, including removing provisions, to ensure that the two sets of legislative provisions interact correctly, without duplication or contradiction. The amendments to the ANO also create offences for breaches of the requirements of the IR. Those amendments mean that many of the references within the Bill to articles of the ANO, and therefore offences, are now out of date. It is therefore necessary to amend them to ensure that the powers in the Bill continue to function. This and other government amendments to Part 3 do not change the policy intention of the Bill.
The government amendment to Clause 17 is simple and technical. It ensures that the Bill refers to the end of the transition period by changing “exit day” to “IP completion day”, which means the implementation completion date.
Clause 18 deals with regulations made under this Act, and the government amendment to it is consequential to one of the amendments to Schedule 11. The amendment specifies which regulations made under Schedule 11 will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The current draft of the Bill lists regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 11. However, paragraph 4 is removed by an amendment to Schedule 11 and the regulation-making power is set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 instead.
I turn to the government amendments to Schedule 8. This Schedule gives the police the powers to require a UA to be grounded and, in certain circumstances, to stop and search persons and vehicles and to enter and search premises under warrant.
Schedule 8 also amends Section 93 of the Police Act 1997, so that counter-UA measures that involve interference with property or wireless telegraphy can be authorised, and so that the use of these measures in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and custodial institutions can be authorised within those organisations and bodies.
The amendments to Schedule 8 remove the incorrect references to offences and replace them with references to the closest equivalents and offences relating to requirements of the IR of a similar nature among the new corresponding offences in the ANO. For example, once amended, Schedule 8 will enable a police constable to stop and search a UAS operator or remote pilot who may not be complying with specific aspects of the IR’s risk-based operational framework—one example would be failing to obtain an operational authorisation to fly outside of the “open category”.
The list of offences to which the amendment to Section 93 of the Police Act 1997 applies has also been amended to include, for example, offences relating to the contravention of specified requirements in the IR. As with the other powers in this schedule, the offences to which the amendment to the Police Act will apply are only those that could constitute a serious safety or security risk if, for example, committed near certain  sites, such as prisons. Without these amendments, the ability to protect the public, our critical national infrastructure and prisons from unlawful behaviour involving the use of unmanned aircraft would be limited.
I now turn to the amendments to Schedule 9. The purpose of Schedule 9 is to enable constables to obtain information from UAS operators or remote pilots about the lawful basis of a UA flight, for those flights that require a prior step to be lawful; for example, by registering or obtaining a permission. It is necessary to amend the powers in this schedule in light of the ANO amendment, including the circumstances in which the powers can be exercised. Under the IR, there is a wider range of circumstances in which a UAS operator must register, more gradations in levels of remote pilot competency and a number of new ways in which the CAA might grant its consent for a UAS operator to undertake higher-risk operations. It has therefore been necessary to substitute the schedule entirely. However, the policy intention of the schedule remains the same.
The Government consider that the powers in Schedule 9 need to be exercisable where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting, rather than believing, that a particular requirement applies. We believe this is necessary to ensure the purpose of the provisions is not defeated as the rules in the IR are more complex. It is necessary to amend some of the terminology to reflect the scope of the IR and the related terminology. The terms “small unmanned aircraft” and “SUA operator” are no longer used in the ANO, which now refers to “unmanned aircraft” and “UAS operator”. The Bill now refers to “relevant consent” to encompass the broader range of approvals, such as permissions, operational authorisations and certifications, that can now be issued by the CAA.
Schedule 9 is amended so that the powers that the police have in relation to the registration and competency requirements and related offences apply to the new registration and competency offences in the ANO and to the requirements for tethered small UA that the ANO amendment introduced. This means that, in the context of registration and competency, the police can still require a remote pilot to provide evidence of competency and give certain information about the operator, while a UAS operator can be required to provide evidence of registration and give information about the remote pilot.
The amendment also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out additional types of information and evidence which a constable could require a remote pilot or UAS operator to produce provided that the constable considered it would be reasonable to do so. Schedule 9 is also amended so that the powers that the police have in relation to provision of evidence of relevant consents for certain flights also apply to the new offences brought in by the ANO amendment. For example, the requirement to have an operational authorisation when flying in the specific category.
The power for a constable to inspect a UA has also been amended. The power, if enacted, would previously have been able to be used to ascertain whether registration and competency requirements were applicable to that particular flight and whether the UA had the UAS operator’s registration number displayed on it. Under the proposed amendment, a constable would be able  to inspect a UA to ascertain whether any of the other powers in Schedule 9 were exercisable. This will still include circumstances where it is necessary to gain a more accurate assessment of the aircraft’s mass or to see whether the UAS operator’s registration number is displayed. It will now also include, for example, circumstances where a constable needs to check the class marking of a UA. EU Delegated Regulation 2019/945 requires UA put on the market from 1 January 2023 to meet certain product standards and bear markings that indicate which class the aircraft is in. This will, in time, assist a constable to ascertain whether the operation that has been undertaken using the aircraft was permitted under a particular category or subcategory of operation of the IR and to determine whether any further investigation is necessary or whether an offence has been committed.
I once again reassure noble Lords that the amendments to Schedule 9 are essential to ensure it functions as intended in light of the changes flowing from the IR becoming applicable and the changes made to the ANO by the ANO amendment.
Schedule 10 makes provision about fixed penalties for certain offences relating to UA. A minor and technical amendment has been made to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 10 to change where the new provision created by that paragraph will appear in the ANO. This is necessary because the recent ANO amendment has added more provisions after Article 265 of the ANO.
Finally, Schedule 11 currently contains powers that allow for amendments to Schedule 8 and to Section 13 and Schedule 9 to the Bill—once it is an Act—in light of changes to the ANO, the creation of a new ANO or regulations made under the Act to provide for offences relating to EU-derived legislation. This means that the police powers in this Bill can be used to enforce any new unmanned aircraft offences brought in by any of the above.
These powers are being amended so that they include the ability for Schedule 9 to be amended again in the future in a similar way to how we are currently proposing to amend it. In other words, we are restructuring the schedule to accommodate changes to the regulatory framework while keeping the policy intention the same. I reassure noble Lords that the ways in which Schedule 9 can be amended in future are limited to within the parameters of its current subject matter.
The amendments to Schedule 11 would also permit future amendments to the police powers in Schedule 9 to authorise a constable to use reasonable force as well as create offences, including for knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information, documentation or evidence to a constable. This is in keeping with the powers currently in that schedule and therefore reflects the policy intention of that schedule as well as the aim of the Bill as a whole.
The power in Schedule 11 to create criminal offences and civil penalties, so that the requirements of the delegated and implementing regulations can be enforced, remains, but the scope of it is being expanded slightly to reflect that we now have additional regulation-making powers in the retained EU-derived legislation. The amendments permit regulations made under Schedule 11  to provide for compliance with regulations made under the UK basic regulation. The remaining amendments to the schedule are minor and consequential to those described above and are necessary to ensure that this part of the Bill continues to function as it should.
In summary, without Schedule 11 and without these amendments to it, it would not be possible to ensure that the enforcement of secondary legislation relating to UA remains fit for purpose, especially in light of new and often rapid developments in UA technology and its possible misuse in the future. To reiterate, despite this looking like a large quantity of amendments, there is no change to policy intent. The changes are necessary because of the changes to the underlying regulations and the retained EU law and to the ANO. I beg to move.

Lord Balfe: I am speaking to this general set of amendments, but I want to speak particularly on disabled safety features on drones. The Bill should make it illegal to fly a drone if any safety features are inoperable or have been disabled. My noble friend Lord Whitty tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee. The Minister’s assurance then was that the safety feature that could be referred to would be electronic conspicuity, the disabling of which would be covered under other provisions. That, we believe, is not the case. Lights, geo-awareness and geo-fencing, software functions that limit altitude, remote ID and various redundancy measures could all be covered under this provision. There are technical requirements for certain systems whereby the user cannot modify them—for example, data associated with remote ID. However, this does not protect against deliberate hacking or intentional disabling of systems. A provision that makes these acts illegal is therefore relevant.
BALPA has engaged directly with staff at the DfT on this point and we are grateful to the Minister’s officials for doing so. We note that the Government believe that sufficient safeguards are already available in the Air Navigation Order to cover this matter, but, overall, we still believe that a specific and separate offence should be created in the Bill. I make these points for the Minister to take on board, as it is highly likely that this sensible and proportionate amendment may be urged when the matter is considered in the other place. I hope the Minister can take this back to the department and reflect on it as the Bill proceeds further.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister on her spirited 12-minute speech, which covered all these amendments.
In the heady days of the 1960s, I went to university for three years. Her Majesty was good enough to teach me to fly in the Royal Air Force. At university, I ran the college bar and happened to get a maths degree. It was useful training, which led me into an airline career. Running the college bar gave me first-hand experience in line management, and I am afraid that the only effect of the maths degree was to make me even more pedantic than I was naturally.
Accordingly, when the Minister was kind enough to send a letter setting out these amendments and where they were, I read it and alighted on some of the words  used. She wrote to clarify that these were “largely” technical changes, saying that it is important to note that these amendments, if accepted, will not change the policy intention of the Bill and are, “in most cases”, just making minor but essential changes. Either the words are careless, and the changes are wholly technical—though I believe that there is no such thing in most cases—or some of these amendments are not technical in nature. In her response, can the Minister tell me which of these many amendments is not a technical change but has some substance? Or can she assure me that the words “largely” and “in most cases” should have been omitted from her letter and that all the changes are technical?
I ask for this assurance because we do not have the resources to work through such a large number of amendments. We made an attempt—and I commend our adviser, Ben, who worked through them. He could not find anything that was not minor and technical, but I would value the Minister enlightening me and satisfying my pedantic approach.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I have grappled with all these amendments. I wondered whether what seemed minor and technical to me might seem very significant to someone working in the industry. I thank the Minister and her officials for their thorough briefings. However, this all shines a light on the unsatisfactory situation with this Bill—a major tranche of amendments has been produced because of the time that has elapsed.
I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. They underline the need for a much more comprehensive approach and review. Although my amendment was narrowly lost, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the points I have made and the need to look more comprehensively at this in the near future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, as ever, the views of BALPA must hold great weight. It is important that safety is at the forefront of our minds, on all these issues. But because this is a diverse, complex and fast-changing subject, only people actually working in the industry are able to spot the problems when they first appear.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I cannot see anything here which is not detailed and technical. Therefore, I have no objections to the amendments.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank noble Lords for their short interventions on this debate. Turning first to the comments of my noble friend Lord Balfe, I will, of course, take them back to the department and consider them further.
Turning to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—I see his maths degree and I raise him an engineering degree. And I am the ultimate pedant. However, what is minor and technical to one person is not minor and technical to another; indeed, that was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. When it comes to my letter to him, where I said “in most cases” and “largely”, I think I was just trying to cover my bases. The reality is that they are minor and technical. Where they are slightly not minor  and technical—perhaps a bit borderline—I tried to bring that out in my 12-minute speech, particularly where there have been changes. For example, the implementing regulation has introduced some changes from the status quo ante; it is a slightly different regime. I suppose that, although they are technical amendments to make it all match up, perhaps they may be on the large end of minor. But I reassure him that I too have found nothing that I could not describe as minor or technical and, on that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment 16 agreed.

Baroness Henig: We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 17

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: Moved by Lord Randall of Uxbridge
17: Before Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—“Prohibiting aircraft noise over designated sitesCivil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet over landscapes designated as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are prohibited, except—(a) any civil aviation aircraft landing at or taking off from civil airports or airfields, and(b) civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet for safety reasons.”

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: My Lords, I start by apologising to noble Lords and my noble friend the Minister, as I was unable to take part at Second Reading or in Committee. I have, of course, read the Hansard reports of both previous stages.
In moving Amendment 17, standing in my name, let me say at the outset that I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division, and I can see the potential problems if my amendment was actually inserted into the Bill. Nevertheless, I feel the issue merits a short debate.
Aircraft noise caused by low-flying aircraft, particularly if it is frequent, is a major disruption, and, indeed, can be a health issue. Those who live near airports and aerodromes get used to it—not that they can ever ignore it. However, my concern, one that is shared by many who enjoy the pleasures and tranquillity of our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, is that, from time to time, that very peace and quiet is shattered by excessive aircraft noise. This amendment would prohibit civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet over landscapes designated as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, except for any civil aviation aircraft landing at or taking off from civil airports or airfields and civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet for safety reasons. I have chosen 7,000 feet because that is the point at which noise is considered by the CAA to be a pertinent consideration when designing flight paths.
My honourable friend Mr Philip Dunne, the chair of the Environmental Audit Select Committee in the other place, has taken a keen interest in this matter and has asked several Parliamentary Questions exploring the issue. In March last year, he asked
“what provisions are included in the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill … to protect national parks and AONBs from aircraft noise.”
In reply, my honourable friend the Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, said:
“The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an airport, air navigation service provider or another body to take forward an airspace change that is considered necessary for the delivery of the Civil Aviation Authority’s … Airspace Modernisation Strategy.
Any Airspace Change Proposals that are taken forward as a result will be covered by the department’s existing Air Navigation Guidance which is reflected in the CAA’s airspace change process. The guidance for this process states that, where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty … and National Parks.”
That Answer states “where practicable” and “it is desirable”, but I am afraid that that sounds a little weak to me.
In reply to a further Question asking
“what … scrutiny and … appeal mechanisms there are for the assessment of the effect of aircraft noise on … Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and … and National Parks”,
the Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, said:
“The government expects airports to monitor the effect of aircraft noise on their surroundings, and to seek to address any specific concerns arising from it. There are no specific scrutiny arrangements or appeal mechanisms related to the assessment of aircraft noise on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty … or National Parks.
The airspace issues surrounding AONB and National Parks were considered in the department’s airspace and noise project. The outcome of this work was reflected in the Air Navigation Guidance 2017, which the department issued to the Civil Aviation Authority … in October 2017.
The guidance requires the CAA to have regard to the statutory purposes of AONB and National Parks when considering proposals ... When airspace changes are being considered, it is important that local circumstances, including community views on specific areas that should be avoided, are taken into account where possible. However, given the finite amount of airspace available, it will not always be possible to avoid overflying AONB and National Parks.”
Finally, when asked
“what provisions are included in the … Bill … to protect national parks and AONBs from aircraft noise”,
the Answer came back:
“The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an airport, air navigation service provider or another body to take forward an airspace change that is considered necessary for the delivery of the Civil Aviation Authority’s … Airspace Modernisation Strategy.
Any Airspace Change Proposals that are taken forward as a result will be covered by the department’s existing Air Navigation Guidance which is reflected in the CAA’s airspace change process. The guidance for this process states that, where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty … and National Parks.”
I apologise to noble Lords and particularly to the Minister for reading all that out—in fact, it may well be in her brief. Noble Lords might think that it seems to be quite good as far as it goes, but I cannot see any  particular sanctions that can be taken if these directions are ignored. I would like to see something that gives real discouragement to those who seek to ignore the directions. Perhaps my noble friend can explain what happens if an aeroplane flies too low over one of these areas without good cause. I look forward to her reply. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has raised this matter, because it is of considerable concern to many people—those who enjoy areas of outstanding natural beauty and, for example, those who run the National Trust. I, too, would like to know what sanctions are available to people who own such areas of land if it becomes apparent that aircraft are not keeping to the guidance provided by the various air traffic orders.
Therefore, I intervene simply to second what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has said. I believe that the mechanisms are there, but what I really want to know is what happens if the rules are not obeyed and what can be done about it.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I welcome the raising of this fresh issue. I have had representations from residents in Shropshire about a sudden unexplained increase in aircraft noise in their area. In this case the noise was undoubtedly caused by civilian flights. People who suddenly find themselves underneath flights by the Air Force and the military often understand the need for those, but they may be more concerned about civilian commercial flights.
Even the local councillors could not find the cause. They could not discover where the flights were coming from, or why there had been a sudden increase. Was a new airline operating from a nearby airport? Were the schedules, or the destinations, different? They could not find the answer, and then along came the pandemic, and there was no longer a problem. However, that does not mean that the problem has disappeared for ever, or that it will not be back in the reasonably near future.
Even if that problem does not return in Shropshire, that would not undermine the important principle behind the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for tabling it. Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks are subject to numerous protections in terms of planning, the natural environment, and the agriculture that can take place within them, but, as I understand it, there is no protection from aircraft noise.
The Bill threatens to make the present vulnerability of such places worse, because airports will now be required to surrender their spare airspace. There might be an airport very close to an AONB but not operating over it simply because there is no commercial incentive to use that route. But now airports are to be asked to give up their spare airspace for use by general aviation, which means that our skies will be even more crowded.
This is an interesting development, at a time when the Government are keen to burnish their environmental credentials. I recommend that they look into this and see whether they can use their new powers to deal with the problem of noise. I urge the Minister to take seriously  the suggestion in the amendment that flights below 7,000 feet should be controlled, and allowed only in certain situations.

Lord Rosser: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for his amendment, which, as he said, provides us with an opportunity to debate aircraft noise. I am sure that in her response, the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that. I certainly would not claim to know what all their objectives are on aircraft noise, but I do remember one, although it is unrelated to the specific issue covered in the amendment.
Following the 2017 public consultation on Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the Government said that their objective was to
“limit or reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise at night, including through encouraging the use of quieter aircraft, while maintaining the existing benefits of night flights.”
As we are discussing aircraft noise, it might be interesting if the Minister could provide some information on the specific certifiable progress that has already been made towards achieving that stated government objective, and what specific further objectives and targets the Government have set themselves for the next three years so as to deliver on the objective to which I referred.
On the specific issue raised in this amendment, I am sure that a great many people who visit national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have, at times, been conscious of aircraft flying low overhead. An interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about all the other types of protection that already exist for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In that context, she asked why the goal and objective set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, might not also offer a further protection, in view of how aircraft noise can, at times, diminish the enjoyment that people expect when visiting national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment refers specifically to civil aircraft, but presumably there could be an issue with military aircraft in this context as well.
I support the basic objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks with his amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will set out the Government’s thinking on aircraft noise, not least on the specific circumstances covered by this amendment and the goals, objectives and targets that the Government have set in this regard.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall for tabling this amendment. When we debated this in Committee, noise did not particularly come up. I hope that one of the benefits of airspace modernisation is noise reducing. I am unable to set out in full the Government’s position on noise at airports; if there are any detailed questions, I will write.
However, I want to address the points made and the issues relevant to the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Randall. He is absolutely right, and he read out lots of responses from the Aviation Minister to questions on airspace change proposals, which are covered by the air navigation guidance. Indeed, the guidance states that
“where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks”.
There was a question about sanctions. Obviously, some airports have no option but to send flights over AONBs and national parks. For example, Gatwick is surrounded by them. We are lucky in our country, in that there are a significant number of these things and they are wonderful, but it is simply not possible for them not to be overflown. One might narrow it down to those operating below 7,000 feet, but nearly all commercial aircraft operating below 7,000 feet are taking off or landing. Again, with airspace change proposals, we expect to see the trajectory of both landing and taking off become steeper, which will again reduce noise and limit their impact.
The amendment is unlikely to have a significant impact on the volume of such flights because they are taking off and landing, but it would have a significant impact on general aviation, which would be unable to overfly vast swathes of the UK. Noble Lords will have heard today support for general aviation in government and parts of your Lordships’ House. There is lots to consider about this. It does not mean that the Government want AONBs and national parks to be overflown; we certainly do not. We expect everybody to behave sensibly when flying over such parks.
We understand that disturbances from aircraft noise can have a negative impact on the health and quality of life of people living near airports and aerodromes. When it comes to airspace change proposals, however, the impact on the local community and their surroundings is a key consideration, and we introduced new airspace and noise policies in October 2017. I know that the industry is extremely cognisant of noise and its impact on local communities, because it does not serve the industry well not to be seen to try to mitigate noise as much as possible—having a very restive local community is never helpful.
We have implemented new noise metrics and appraisal guidance to assess noise impacts and their impacts on health and quality of life. That includes the amenity of being able to use parks in the way that one would expect—as places of relative tranquillity. The Government continue to review aviation noise policy, as new evidence emerges, to ensure that it continues to be fit for purpose. The Government also recognise that, as technology improves, aircraft are also getting quieter.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my noble friend that AONBs and national parks are already considered as part of the airspace change process—as he pointed out—and it is the case that the Government are cognisant of AONBs and national parks and how they might feed into the airspace change process. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: My Lords, I thank other noble Lords for joining in on this short but important debate: the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, hit on the point that has not, perhaps, been completely answered by my noble friend, which is that there has seemingly been a change in overflying at lower heights. It is something that people notice. I live near Heathrow. We do not get much overflying, but we did notice last year, before the pandemic, that there seemed to be a change in patterns. My amendment would have tried to stop not overflying per se but flying below 7,000 feet.
My other concern is the fact that there is no way of registering such low flying and no sanctions that can be applied to an aeroplane that, for whatever reason, flies lower than it should. Clearly, there might be a safety issue or whatever, and I also take the point about take-off and landing, but I do not think that those are the cases that people complain about.
Having listened to the previous debate, as someone with a degree in Serbo-Croat I do not think that I could match the academic qualities of my noble friend, and I would certainly not dream of teaching her to suck eggs. I suggest, however, that when this goes to the other place there will be Members there whose constituents will contact them, and those Members may want answers to some of those questions. I say that as someone who knows that this is the sort of thing that really gets constituents going.
I will leave it at that. I am grateful for my noble friend’s answer. It was not quite as full as I had hoped for, but I am never really disappointed by her answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 17 withdrawn.

  
Clause 18: Regulations

Amendment 18

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
18: Clause 18, page 11, line 14, leave out from “paragraph” to end of line 15 and insert “1(2) of Schedule 11 that make provision authorised by paragraph 1(3)(b) or (4)(b) or (c) of that Schedule.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would be consequential on the removal of paragraph 4 of Schedule 11, and its replacement by paragraph 1 of Schedule 11, which would result from other amendments standing in my name. It provides for the cases when draft affirmative Parliamentary procedure is to apply to the exercise of the power in paragraph 1 by regulations under the Act.
Amendment 18 agreed.

  
Clause 19: Extent

Amendment 18A

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
18A: Clause 19, page 11, line 20, after “Ireland” insert “, except that section (Airport slot allocation) (airport slot allocation) extends to England and Wales and Scotland only”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would provide that the new Clause extends to England and Wales and Scotland only.
Amendment 18A agreed.

  
Clause 20: Commencement

Amendment 18B

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
18B: Clause 20, page 11, line 25, at end insert—“(aa) section (Airport slot allocation);”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would provide that the new Clause would come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
Amendment 18B agreed.

  
Schedule 5: New Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000
  

Amendment 19 not moved.

  
Schedule 6: New Schedule C1 to the Transport Act 2000
  

Amendment 20 not moved.

  
Schedule 7: Air traffic services: consequential amendments

Amendment 21

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
21: Schedule 7, page 62, line 11, leave out paragraph 6Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 10 that inserts a new subsection (5A)(which amends section 34 of the Transport Act 2000).
Amendment 21 agreed.

Lord Alderdice: We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this Amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

  
Schedule 8: General police powers and prison powers relating to unmanned aircraft

Amendment 22

Lord Tunnicliffe: Moved by Lord Tunnicliffe
22: Schedule 8, page 64, line 20, after “may” insert “destroy the aircraft or”

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, Amendment 22, in simple terms, allows an appropriate authority to destroy a drone. The Minister has been kind enough to debate this at some length and wrote me a letter on 11 January setting out three points. First, legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists. Secondly, operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable. Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary. I am not being pedantic here, but the words in the last two points, particularly, are of  a partial kind. The Minister does not really need to debate reasons two and three with me. When it comes to the third, I know that “existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary”, but it may be necessary. I accept that, “operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable”, as all sorts of second-order effects would have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the only point I wish to debate is that, “legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists”. In her response, I would like the Minister to convince me of that.
I am aware, through my previous responsibilities, of the impact that can be made with two kilos of Semtex. The potential for a determined terrorist to use a UA for malicious terrorism is real. Such a terrorist coming from a sophisticated organisation would, of course, not have a drone with all the protective devices that a commercially applied drone has. The Gatwick incident showed that the police were then powerless, probably for technical reasons, to stop massive disruption taking place by the use of a drone. It seems to me that if a serious terrorist-like incident were developing, one would want a clear power for the authorities to destroy a drone. The burden rests with the Minister to convince us that the powers that exist are genuinely sufficient to make sure that the authorities, in appropriate circumstances, could destroy a drone in the interests of safety and limiting damage or massive destruction. I beg to move.

Lord Balfe: My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but this is my application to join the pedants’ club, which was advertised somewhat earlier.
The amendment says
“insert ‘destroy the aircraft or’”.
The clause would then read:
“The constable may destroy the aircraft or require a person to ground the aircraft”.
I thought that this was a sort of “Derbyshire Constabulary amendment”, where they go chasing round after people—a constable cannot destroy an aircraft. What would we have? Would we have Derbyshire police with a popgun? I am afraid that it just will not work.
I can see what is meant but I can also see that we need to think this through a bit more thoroughly, particularly the attendant risks that might arise. The power conveyed in this Act could almost certainly be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I speak as a long-standing alternate member of the Council of Europe, and, indeed, as someone who was for some time a chair of its committee on implementation of judgments of the court. Even if the wording were sound, I am not sure that the principle is. You would need a proper judicial process in order to destroy a drone, and you would not be able to do it as an either/or—we will either destroy the drone or make you land it and then we will talk to you. I suggest that the amendment is well meaning but, unfortunately, defective.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, destroying a drone or an unmanned aircraft is a vital mechanism, particularly for dealing with terrorism. The incident at Gatwick at the end of 2019 illustrated for us all that dealing with an intruder drone is a highly complex  issue. I invite noble Lords to think back to that and to the discussions that took place in the media, and, much more importantly, behind the scenes, on exactly how to deal with a drone that was causing millions of pounds of economic damage. It was damaging the economy and causing huge individual damage to those unable to fly, yet people were paralysed into inactivity, not least because there was a lack of certainty about powers. There was also a lack of certainty about the ability to destroy the drone effectively and the safety of doing it. All those things were being taken into account.
However, there would be circumstances where destroying a drone would be the simple and clear answer to a threat. I welcome this as an interesting, probing amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I shall listen carefully to the Minister.
Going back to the Gatwick situation, I remind noble Lords that days were spent deciding how to deal with that drone. To this day, we do not know who was flying it. Therefore, the situation was never satisfactorily resolved.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his amendment, which gives the police the power to destroy a UA if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that it has been, or is likely to be, used in the commission of an offence. We have had many a thought-provoking discussion on this, both inside and outside the Chamber. If he will forgive me, I will set out the Government’s stall in full, even though I am aware that he accepts two of the arguments that I am about to put forward.
While I understand the intention behind this amendment, it is critical that all powers in this Bill are necessary and proportionate, and we have worked very hard with the Home Office and the police to ensure that this is the case. Our aspiration for this Bill has always been to ensure that we provide the police with the powers necessary to effectively respond to UA incidents, while ensuring that we do not inadvertently discourage positive UA use in the UK.
I will set out the three key reasons as to why the Government are of the view that this amendment is not required. First—I think that this is the point that the noble Lord needs to be convinced on—from a legal standpoint, the powers to destroy a UA already exist. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967—the CLA—allows the reasonable use of force in the prevention of crime. This is not police-specific legislation, but it is legislation that the police can, and do, rely on in circumstances where force is required. It would allow a police officer to destroy a UA in extremis if it were deemed necessary, subject to risk assessments.
The powers in this Bill must be necessary and proportionate, and the police assess that Section 3 of the CLA 1967 is sufficient and proportionate in the case of a UA, in line with other areas of policing. This legislation is used for other aspects of policing that require force in the prevention of crime, such as the use of police batons. Therefore, there is no legal requirement to provide for this power in the Bill. Indeed, doing so would set an unusual precedent: why would we specify a drone and not anything else? This could be taken to undermine reliance on the CLA 1967 in other areas.
Secondly, destroying a UA is not generally operationally desirable because there is a need to maintain presentable evidence as part of a police investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. Destroying a UA could render digital and forensic examinations impossible, potentially compromising an investigation.
Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is also often unnecessary. The Government’s counter-unmanned aircraft strategy committed to the creation of a new national police counter-unmanned aircraft capability in the UK. This capability makes use of technology that is more sophisticated and does not by necessity result in the destruction of the UA. It relies on defeat countermeasures, known as “effectors” or “jammers”, which have a number of impacts on the UA, such as causing it to return home, landing it or forcing it to hover—the specific outcome depends on the UA programming. These effectors defeat the UA and prevent whatever malicious action it was going to take in a way that is more proportionate, easier for the operator to use and less likely to cause unwarranted collateral damage than the use of technology that destroys the UA.
The noble Lord previously raised a concern that the Bill and the package of related counter-UA measures we are taking would not be impactful in a high-threat UA incident. I will now set out why I believe that the Bill, alongside these other measures, would have sufficient impact. First, our operating procedures across a range of critical national infrastructure sites, such as airports and other key sites such as prisons, are constantly evolving and have significantly improved since the Gatwick 2018 drone incursion. This allows for a faster, more effective response by both the site and the police. The Bill supplements this as it extends the range of public authorities that can be given authorisations to make lawful the use of jamming equipment to counter UA.
Secondly, as I mentioned, the police have new capabilities and counter-UA measures available to them, which provide a step change in our ability to respond to UA incidents, compared to Gatwick 2018. The Bill supplements this by providing the necessary powers for the police to use this capability to its fullest extent.
Thirdly, if an incident occurs that cannot be stopped by either our operating procedures or our police capability, we can use Section 3 of the CLA 1967 to use necessary reasonable force to stop or, where absolutely necessary and proportionate, damage or even destroy the UA.
I hope that, based on the reassurances I have given, noble Lords will be satisfied that this Bill provides the police with sufficient powers to deal with UA offences, and that there are existing powers in law under which the destruction of a UA is, and can be, justified, where it is absolutely necessary in the circumstances. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I listened to that explanation and remain unconvinced that it will not cause significant delay in what would be a fast-moving event and that the police or other appropriate authority would not, in fact, be more effective if they had the power to destroy a drone in a serious emergency  situation. However, I have a difficult problem in pressing this any further in that the Minister arranged a meeting with senior Home Office and police people who said that they did not want the power, and if they are not attracted to having it, it would be unreasonable of me to press this further, having failed to convince the Government.
Before I finish, I note that we have done Report in three hours and 30 minutes. An observer of our normal proceedings might say that we have not taken this Bill seriously. In fact, we have taken it very seriously, and I commend the Minister and her people for the enormous amount of time, effort and letter writing they have put in to responding to the many questions and concerns we have put to them. Accordingly, I can assure society in general and anybody watching this event that opposition scrutiny and, as far as I can tell, Liberal Democrat scrutiny of the Bill have been very thorough indeed and very efficiently handled by the Minister and her people, and I thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 22 withdrawn.

Amendments 23 to 34

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
23: Schedule 8, page 65, line 7, leave out “or 240” and insert “, 240, 265A(2) or 265B(2)”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
24: Schedule 8, page 65, line 14, leave out “an offence under article 95 or” and insert “—(i) an offence under article”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would remove a reference to an offence which is revoked by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
25: Schedule 8, page 65, line 15, after “2016” insert—“(ii) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016, or(iii) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
26: Schedule 8, page 65, line 35, leave out from “to” to end of line 36 and insert “—(a) an offence under any of these provisions of the ANO 2016—(i) article 94A (certain unmanned aircraft: permission for flights over or near aerodromes);(ii) article 239(4) (prohibited or restricted flying);(iii) article 240 (endangering safety of an aircraft);(iv) article 265A(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to UAS operators);(v) article 265B(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to remote pilots);(b) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016;(c) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016; or  (d) a relevant prison offence.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would remove the use of the defined term “relevant ANO offence” from paragraph 2(6) and instead list the offences to be covered. That list includes some new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
27: Schedule 8, page 65, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (7)Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would remove sub-paragraph (7) because the interpretation provision would be contained in the new paragraphs 4A to 4F proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
28: Schedule 8, page 66, line 49, after “relevant” insert “unmanned aircraft”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” by the new paragraph 4A proposed in another amendment standing in my name.
29: Schedule 8, page 67, line 44, after “relevant” insert “unmanned aircraft”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” by the new paragraph 4A proposed in another amendment standing in my name.
30: Schedule 8, page 68, line 2, after “relevant” insert “unmanned aircraft”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
31: Schedule 8, page 68, line 6, at end insert—“Meaning of “relevant unmanned aircraft offence”4A_ In this Schedule “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” means—(a) an offence under this Act;(b) any of these offences under the ANO 2016—(i) an offence under article 94A(1), 239(4), 265A(2) or 265B(2) of the ANO 2016;(ii) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016;(iii) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016;(c) an offence under any of these provisions—(i) section 40C(2) or (3) of the Prison Act 1952;(ii) section 34B(2) or (3) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953;(iii) section 41 or 41ZA of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989;(d) a Scottish common law prison offence.Meaning of “relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016”4B_ In this Schedule “relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016” means an offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265B(5)(a), (h), (i) or (j);(b) article 265B(6);(c) article 265B(7)(e), but only insofar as that requirement (to comply with authorised limitations and conditions) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight;(d) article 265B(7)(f), (g) or (i);   (e) article 265B(8), but only insofar as that requirement (conditions under which operations in the framework of the model aircraft clubs or associations may be conducted) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight.Meaning of “relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016”4C_ In this Schedule “relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016” means an offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265E(2)(a)(vi), (vii) or (viii);(b) article 265E(2)(b)(ix), (x) or (xi);(c) article 265E(5)(a);(d) article 265E(6).Meaning of “relevant prison offence”4D_ In this Schedule “relevant prison offence” means—(a) an offence under any of these provisions of the Prison Act 1952—(i) section 39 (assisting a prisoner to escape);(ii) section 40B (conveyance etc of List A articles into or out of prison);(iii) section 40C (conveyance etc of List B or C articles into or out of prison);(iv) section 40CB (throwing articles into prison);(b) an offence under any of these provisions of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953—(i) section 29(1) (assisting escape from lawful custody);(ii) section 33 (facilitating escape by conveying things into prison);(iii) section 34A (conveyance etc of List A articles into or out of prison);(iv) section 34B (conveyance etc of List B or C articles into or out of prison);(c) an offence under either of these provisions of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989—(i) section 41 (unlawful introduction of proscribed articles into a prison);(ii) section 41ZA (provision to and use by prisoners of personal communication devices);(d) a Scottish common law prison offence.Meaning of “Scottish common law prison offence”4E_(1) In this Schedule “Scottish common law prison offence” means—(a) an offence at common law in Scotland committed by assisting a prisoner in a penal institution in Scotland in escaping or attempting to escape from the institution;(b) an offence at common law in Scotland committed by, intending to facilitate the escape of a prisoner from a penal institution in Scotland, doing any of the following things—(i) bringing, throwing or otherwise conveying anything into the institution;(ii) causing another person to bring, throw or otherwise convey anything into the institution;(iii) giving anything to a prisoner or leaving anything in any place (whether inside or outside the institution).(2) In this paragraph—“penal institution” has the meaning given by section 108 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016;“prisoner” means a person who is detained or imprisoned in such an institution.   Other interpretation4F_(1) In this Schedule—“article associated with an unmanned aircraft” includes—(a) any component, part or product of an unmanned aircraft, and(b) any equipment, including an electronic device, relating to an unmanned aircraft;“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—(a) any vehicle;(b) any offshore installation;(c) any renewable energy installation (that expression having the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004);(d) any tent or movable structure;“property” includes land and buildings;“vehicle” includes any vessel, aircraft (whether or not an unmanned aircraft) or hovercraft.(2) A reference in this Schedule to a provision of subordinate legislation (whenever the reference is passed or made) is a reference to that provision as it has effect from time to time.(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to any contrary provision made in subordinate legislation.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would bring together all of the interpretation provision relating to paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Schedule (including some new interpretation provision) and locate it immediately after paragraph 4.
32: Schedule 8, page 70, line 15, leave out “small unmanned aircraft: permissions for certain flights” and insert “certain unmanned aircraft: permission for flights over or near aerodromes”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would update the reference to the title of article 94A to reflect the change made by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
33: Schedule 8, page 70, line 20, at end insert—“(v) article 265A(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to UAS operators);(vi) article 265B(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to remote pilots);(h) an offence under article 265B(3) of the Air Navigation Order 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of that Order—(i) article 265B(5)(a), (h), (i) or (j);(ii) article 265B(6);(iii) article 265B(7)(e), but only insofar as that requirement (to comply with authorised limitations and conditions) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight;(iv) article 265B(7)(f), (g) or (i);(v) article 265B(8), but only insofar as that requirement (conditions under which operations in the framework of the model aircraft clubs or associations may be conducted) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
34: Schedule 8, page 75, line 6, leave out paragraph 7   Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would remove paragraph 7 because the interpretation provision would be contained in the new paragraphs 4A to 4F proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
Amendments 23 to 34 agreed.

  
Schedule 9: Police powers relating to requirements in the ANO 2016

Amendment 35

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
35: Schedule 9, leave out Schedule 9 and insert the following new Schedule—“SCHEDULEUNMANNED AIRCRAFT: POWERS OF POLICE OFFICERS RELATING TO ANO 2016Provision by remote pilots of evidence of competency1_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of P’s compliance, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, with a relevant competency requirement.(3) In this paragraph “relevant competency requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265B(5)(b) (open category: having the appropriate competency in the intended sub-category of flight);(b) article 265B(5)(c) (open category: carrying proof of competency);(c) article 265B(7)(b) (specific category: having the appropriate competency);(d) article 265B(7)(c) (specific category: carrying proof of competency);(e) article 265B(8) (specific category: having the appropriate competency specified in the authorisation relating to the flight);(f) article 265E(2)(b)(ii) (tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more: competency).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide evidence of P’s compliance, as respects an unmanned aircraft and a flight, with a relevant competency requirement,(b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators2_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—  (a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of—(a) the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or(b) the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P.(3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265A(5)(a) (open category: registration of UAS operator);(b) article 265A(5)(b) (open category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(c) article 265A(6)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(d) article 265A(6)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(e) article 265A(7)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(f) article 265A(7)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(g) article 265A(9)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(h) article 265A(9)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(i) article 265E(1)(a) (registration of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more);(j) article 265E(1)(b) (display of registration number of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, information as to the identity of a person,(b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,(c) the relevant registration requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and(d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by UAS operators of evidence of registration3_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and   (ii) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of P’s compliance, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, with a relevant registration requirement.(3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” has the same meaning as in paragraph 2.(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide evidence of P’s compliance, as respects the flight, with a relevant registration requirement,(b) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by UAS operators of information about remote pilots4_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of the person or persons who are or were the remote pilot or remote pilots of the unmanned aircraft for the flight.(3) In this paragraph “relevant competency requirement” has the same meaning as in paragraph 1.(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide information as to the identity of a person,(b) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,(c) the relevant competency requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and(d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by remote pilots or UAS operators of other information etc5_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that—   (a) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information, documentation or evidence that is of a specified description as the constable considers reasonable.(3) In this paragraph “specified description” means a description specified by the Secretary of State by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.(4) Regulations under this paragraph that specify a description of information, documentation or evidence may provide for conditions that must be met before a constable may require P to provide information, documentation or evidence that is within that description.(5) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide information, documentation or evidence,(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information, documentation or evidence of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(7) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision of evidence of consents for certain flights6_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened unless a relevant consent is or was applicable as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of a relevant consent.(3) In this paragraph “relevant consent” means a permission, operational authorisation, LUC, authorisation or certification required by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 94A (permission for flights over or near aerodromes);(b) article 265A(1)(b) (operational authorisation, LUC with appropriate privileges, or authorisation);(c) article 265A(1)(c) (certification of UAS and UAS operator);(d) article 265B(1)(b) (operational authorisation, LUC with appropriate privileges, or authorisation);(e) article 265B(1)(c) (certification of UAS and UAS operator);(f) article 265E(3) (tethered small unmanned aircraft: permission from CAA).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, evidence of a relevant consent,  (b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant consent is or was applicable as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision of evidence of exemptions for certain flights7_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was, as respects the flight, the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened unless an ANO exemption is or was applicable as respects—(i) a person and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or(ii) the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of an ANO exemption.(3) In this paragraph “ANO exemption” means an exemption under article 266 of the ANO 2016.(4) The evidence which a constable may require a person to provide under this paragraph includes evidence of the applicability of an ANO exemption to a person, or the unmanned aircraft, as respects the flight.(5) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, evidence of an ANO exemption,(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the ANO exemption is or was applicable as respects—(i) P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or(ii) the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(7) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Power to inspect unmanned aircraft in connection with other powers8_(1) A constable may require a person in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether a power conferred by any of paragraphs 1 to 7 is exercisable.(2) A constable may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by this paragraph.(3) A person who fails to comply with a requirement imposed under this paragraph is guilty of an offence.(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.Offence of providing false or misleading information etc   9_(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) anything that the person provides under this Schedule is false or misleading in a material respect, and(b) the person either—(i) knows that it is false or misleading, or(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false or misleading.(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.Provision of information etc at a police station10_(1) A person (P) may comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under any of paragraphs 1 to 7 by providing what the constable required at a police station specified by P at the time when the constable imposed the requirement (the “nominated police station”)—(a) within seven days beginning with the day after which the constable imposed the requirement, or(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so within that seven day period, as soon after the end of that period as is reasonably practicable.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any of paragraphs 1 to 7 in respect of a failure to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to provide what the constable required at the nominated police station before the day on which the proceedings were commenced.(3) For that purpose, the proceedings against a person for an offence are commenced when—(a) in the case of proceedings in England and Wales—(i) an information is laid for the offence,(ii) the person is charged with the offence under Part 4 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or(iii) a written charge is issued against the person for the offence under section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;(b) in the case of proceedings in Scotland, a complaint is served on the person in respect of the offence;(c) in the case of proceedings in Northern Ireland—(i) a summons or warrant is issued under Article 20 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 in respect of the person and the offence,(ii) a summons is issued under section 93 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 in respect of the person and the offence, or(iii) the person is charged with the offence after being taken into custody without a warrant.Interpretation11_(1) In this Schedule the following expressions have the same meanings as in the ANO 2016 (see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016)—“remote pilot”;“UAS operator”.(2) A reference in this Schedule to a provision of subordinate legislation (whenever the reference is passed or made) is a reference to that provision as it has effect from time to time.(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to any contrary provision made in subordinate legislation.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would replace Schedule 9 with a new Schedule. A new regulatory regime for unmanned aircraft under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 has come into effect. The police powers in Schedule 9 now need to relate to that regime. Since this amendment was originally tabled, paragraph 7 has been altered (by the addition of paragraph (5)(c)).
Amendment 35 agreed.

  
Schedule 10: Fixed penalties for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft

Amendment 36

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
36: Schedule 10, page 81, line 40, leave out from beginning to “this” in line 2 on page 82 and insert—“(3) After article 265F of the ANO 2016 insert—“Fixed penalty offences265G. In the case of an offence under any provision of”Member’s explanatory statementThe Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020 includes provision adding into the ANO 2016 new provisions which provide for offences. This amendment would move the new provision made by paragraph 2(3) so that it comes after those new offences.
Amendment 36 agreed.

  
Schedule 11: Amendment and enforcement regulations

Amendments 37 to 43

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
37: Schedule 11, page 88, line 31, leave out from second “make” to end of line 8 on page 89 and insert “any amendment of this Act which is authorised by sub-paragraph (3) or (4).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make any amendment of this Act which is authorised by sub-paragraph (3) or (4).(3) The Order in Council or regulations may make such amendments of Schedule 8 as the appropriate authority considers appropriate for or in connection with—(a) maintaining the effect of a provision of that Schedule in a case where it would otherwise cease to be effective because of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation; or(b) extending a provision of that Schedule to apply to an offence relating to unmanned aircraft under relevant subordinate legislation to which the provision does not already apply.(4) The Order in Council or regulations may make such amendments of section 13 and Schedule 9 as the appropriate authority considers appropriate for or in connection with—(a) maintaining the effect of a provision of that section or Schedule in a case where it would otherwise cease to be effective because of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation;(b) extending a provision of that section or Schedule to apply to an offence relating to unmanned aircraft under relevant subordinate legislation to which the provision does not already apply; or(c) conferring, in consequence of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation, a police power that corresponds to a power conferred by Schedule 9 as enacted.(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(c) each of the following police powers “corresponds to a power conferred by Schedule 9 as enacted”—(a) a power to require a person who the constable has reasonable grounds for believing is or was the remote pilot of an unmanned aircraft for a flight (“A”)—(i) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to A’s compliance with any requirement relating to A’s competency to be the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight;  (ii) to provide information relating to the identity of a person who is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft, or made the unmanned aircraft available to A, for the flight;(iii) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the existence of a consent which is or was required for the flight; or(iv) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the application to the flight of an exemption from a requirement which would otherwise be applicable to the flight;(b) a power to require a person who the constable has reasonable grounds for believing is or was the UAS operator of an unmanned aircraft for a flight (“B”)—(i) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to B’s compliance, as respects the flight, with any requirement relating to registration of B as the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft;(ii) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to B’s compliance, as respects the flight, with any requirement relating to registration of the unmanned aircraft;(iii) to provide information relating to the identity of a person who is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight;(iv) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the existence of a consent which is or was required for the flight;(v) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the application to the flight of an exemption from a requirement which would otherwise be applicable to the flight;(c) a power to require a person who is in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it—(i) if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether any other power conferred by Schedule 9 is exercisable;(ii) for the purpose of checking whether a requirement to display any number, mark or information on the unmanned aircraft is being complied with.(6) The provision that may be made under sub-paragraph (4)(c) in connection with conferring a police power includes—(a) provision authorising a constable to use reasonable force in the exercise of the power;(b) provision for a person to be guilty of an offence if the person—(i) does not comply with a requirement imposed by a constable in the exercise of the power, or(ii) knowingly or recklessly provides a constable exercising the power with information, documentation or evidence that is false or misleading in a material respect.(7) In this paragraph—“appropriate authority” means—(a) Her Majesty, in relation to an Air Navigation Order;(b) the Secretary of State, in relation to regulations;“relevant subordinate legislation” means—(a) an Air Navigation Order;(b) regulations made under paragraph 3 of this Schedule;(c) regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation;(d) regulations made under Article 15 of the UK Implementing Regulation;“remote pilot”, in relation to an unmanned aircraft, means a person (however described) conducting the  flight of the unmanned aircraft (including a person who is a remote pilot within the meaning of the ANO 2016 — see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016);“UAS operator”, in relation to an unmanned aircraft, means a person (however described) who is the operator of the unmanned aircraft (including a person who is a UAS operator within the meaning of the ANO 2016 — see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would introduce a single power in place of the powers currently in paragraphs 1 and 4. That single power would be wider than the current Bill powers insofar as it can be used to amend Schedule 9. It would allow the police powers there to be replaced with new powers of the same kind (eg. if the regulatory regime relating to unmanned aircraft is replaced).
38: Schedule 11, page 89, line 14, leave out from “makes” to end of line 16 and insert “, under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11 to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2020, provision authorised by paragraph 1(3)(b) or (4)(b) or (c) of that Schedule;”.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would be consequential on the changes to paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 made by the amendment standing in my name. It provides for the cases when draft affirmative Parliamentary procedure is to apply to the exercise of the power in paragraph 1 in an Air Navigation Order.
39: Schedule 11, page 90, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (7)Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would leave out sub-paragraph (7), because an equivalent power is already available under paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
40: Schedule 11, page 90, line 19, leave out from “Regulation” to end of line 20 and insert “or provision made under that Regulation;(b) the UK Implementing Regulation or provision made under that Regulation;(c) regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would allow for the creation of offences or civil penalties to enforce compliance with requirements imposed by regulations made under the UK Delegated or Implementing Regulation or regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation.
41: Schedule 11, page 90, line 22, leave out paragraph 4Member’s explanatory statementThe amendment would remove paragraph 4 because it is replaced by paragraph 1 as amended by the amendment standing in my name.
42: Schedule 11, page 91, line 5, at end insert—““UK Basic Regulation” means Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/ 2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91;”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment inserts the definition of “UK Basic Regulation”.
43: Schedule 11, page 91, line 11, at end insert—“and a reference to the UK Basic Regulation, the UK Delegated Regulation or the UK Implementing Regulation is to that Regulation as it forms part of domestic law on and after IP completion day and as amended from time to time.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment ensures that references to these three instruments will be “ambulatory”— that is, the references will catch any amendments made to those instruments in their “domesticated” form as retained EU law.
Amendments 37 to 43 agreed.

  
In the Title

Amendment 44

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
44: In the Title, line 2, after “2000” insert “and about airport slot allocation”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would amend the long title of the Bill to additionally include a reference to airport slot allocation.
Amendment 44 agreed.
Title, as amended, agreed.
House adjourned at 6.37 pm.